Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS LOUISE.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Major Sir James Edmondson) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with Me in the loss I have sustained by the death of My Great Aunt, the Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll.

I greatly appreciate the assurance of your affectionate interest in all that concerns Myself and My family.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Canterbury) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ilkley) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Glasgow Water and Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS.

Ordered,
That, if at any time the Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bills then referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order III the adoption of such a course is desirable, he may apportion the Bills between two Committees on Unopposed Bills, the composition and quorum of each being those prescribed by Standing Order III as modified by this Order, and each Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, and all the Standing Orders applying to the Committee on Unopposed Bills shall apply to each Committee.

Ordered,
That the Chairman of Ways and Means have power to select from the panel appointed under Standing Order III one Member to act as chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present, and at any such meeting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members mentioned in Standing Order III.

Ordered,
That during the present Session the Committee of Selection have power to acid to the panel appointed under Standing Order III."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS CONTAINING LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES.

Ordered,
That in the case of an Opposed Bill promoted by a municipal or other local authority containing clauses by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, and other Local Government matters in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall, when considering such clauses as aforesaid, have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SHOT-FIRING (STEMMING PLUGS).

Mr.Whiteley: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now prepared to include in the regulations stemming plugs as a permitted method to be used in shotfiring?

Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The use of stemming plugs is permissible under the existing shot-firing rules, as long as the plugs and any attachment thereto are non-inflammable.

Mr. Whiteley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not actually in the regulations, and that there is anxiety that it should be included among the permitted methods?

Mr. Lloyd: The regulation in question specifically mentions "clay or other noninflammable substances."

DIVISIONAL AND LIAISON OFFICERS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that of the salary of the personnel of the assistant coal officers and the liaison officers, totalling £12,700 per annum, the sum of 5,620 is paid to retired and pensioned home, or Colonial civil servants; and, as persons thrown out of employment and possessing excellent qualifications for such work should have preference, what action he proposes in the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to divisional coal officers and coal liaison officers, and not to assistant divisional coal officers. As I informed him in answer to a question on 3oth November, these officers were selected and familiarised with their wartime duties in peace time in view of their capability for the duties required of them in war time. It would not be in the public interest to replace officers so selected and trained by other persons without experience in work of this nature.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister agree that, all things being equal, unemployed persons ought to have preference?

Mr. Lloyd: The important thing is to have people with the necessary qualifications.

LOCAL FUEL OFFICES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of his decision to suspend the rationing of gas and electricity, and that of coal, to 100 per cent. of previous deliveries but with greater supplies where required, he has decided to close the rationing section of his Department and thus save a substantial sum to the Exchequer?

Mr. Lloyd: As I informed the House on 9th November, I hope, if the position remains as at present, that: it will shortly be possible to close many of the local fuel offices and retain only a skeleton staff.

Mr. Adams: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that this happy event will take place at an early date?

PRODUCER-GAS-DRIVEN VEHICLES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement indicating what progress has been made in the development of producer-gas-driven vehicles?

Mr. Lloyd: Since my statement on 8th November last, an announcement has been made that the design of conversion equipment evolved by the committee on the emergency conversion of motor vehicles to producer gas may be obtained from the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research by firms able and willing to undertake its manufacture. An announcement will also be made shortly by the Mining Association on behalf of the coal and carbonisation industries regarding fuel for gas-producers.

Mr. Griffiths: Have any applications been received so far?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

RENT AND COAL ALLOWANCES (NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the granting of rent and coal allowances by the Northumberland and Durham coalowners to miners who are serving in the Defence Services?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the arrangements at present in force have been extended for a further period.

Miss Ward: Will those arrangements be permanent until the end of the war?

Mr. Lloyd: I said that my information at present is that they have been extended for a further period. I cannot add anything to that.

ACCIDENTS (BOYS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines what steps he proposes to take with regard to the increase in the accident rate to boys of 16 to 18 years employed underground in the coal mines of the North, from a rate of 293 per 1,000 employed in 1934–36, to a rate of 319 in 1937?

Mr. Lloyd: Comparing 1937 with 1934–36 the accident rate for boys rose as stated, but it was slightly lower again in 1938. The chief measures required to bring about a further reduction of these very high accident rates are an improvement in the working conditions on haulage roads and more training, instruction and supervision of the boys. I cannot within the limits of question and answer explain the steps taken in these respects, but the information is given fully in the published reports of my Department.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister agree that an additional cause is the sending of boys direct from school underground without their first having overground training?

Mr.R.J. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman agree also that one cause is the speed at which these boys have to work?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but it is also a fact, with which most people would agree, that preliminary training on the surface is very important.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PETROL SUPPLIES (TYPING STAFF).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that competent typists capable of statistical work are being paid £2 10s. per week and shorthand typists £2 17s. 6d. in the department of petrol supplies; and whether these girls will be paid overtime for the extra work they have been warned will have to be done by working through the Christmas holidays?

Mr. Lloyd: The typing staff of my Department is paid at the standard rates

authorised by His Majesty's Treasury. I have given instructions that only the minimum staff required for essential duties should be at work during Christmas Day or Boxing Day; should it prove really necessary to keep any typing staff on duty on either day they will be entitled to take a day's leave at a later date.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister's reply mean that these girls who work through Christmas Day and Boxing Day will not be paid the overtime rate?

Mr. Lloyd: The question of the rate is a different one.

Miss Wilkinson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I asked about the rate —whether they will be paid overtime rates for doing this work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day?

Mr. Lloyd: I think I answered that question.

Miss Wilkinson: Have I the Minister's pledge that they will be paid?

Mr. Lloyd: That is what I understand.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why many of the staff being taken on temporarily by Government Departments are people who have never previously worked as clerks and in many cases relatives of permanent officials, especially as many ex-service men who were temporary civil servants until recently are now unemployed; and if he will ensure that in future preference is given for any vacancies occurring in Government Departments to such ex-service men who were previously employed by the Government and who are not in receipt of a pension?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5th December to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). With regard to the second part, it has been and remains the practice that, other things being equal, preference is given in filling temporary vacancies in the Government Service to ex-Servicemen.

EVACUATION.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury


whether he is aware that there is grave discontent and distress among the wives of civil servants because their husbands are to be evacuated to country districts remote from their homes, while they are left: in the danger areas; that this move will cause trouble and the breaking-up of their home life; whether the policy of taking men and women of the Civil Service out of London is still necessary; arid, in view of this feeling and of general criticism of this policy, will he reconsider the matter?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that there has been some protest against the separation of civil servants from their families which is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of the evacuation schemes. The Government are, however, satisfied that the existing policy is still necessary in the public interest.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some 3,000 civil servants in the Insurance and Pension Departments are being transferred from Government offices at Acton to Blackpool during the first week of the New Year, and that the evacuated premises are to be filled by the staff of other Government Departments, and does he think that is reasonable, equitable and just?

Captain Crookshank: That is not the question which I have been asked, and I should like to have notice of any question of that character.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS (LICENCES AND CONTROL).

Mr Levy: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of complaints that in many cases, after getting export licences, exporters are unable to secure the necessary supplies from the controls; what is the liaison between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of supply in this connection; and what action he proposes to take to remove this obstacle to essential export trade?

The President of the Board of Trade:Mr. Oliver Stanley): If my hon. Friend is referring to the case of wool, wool tops, noils and yarn, where difficulties have arisen with regard to the export issue price of wool, I understand that this difficulty has now been overcome.

There is a close liaison between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, and I shall be glad to look into cases of difficulty on receipt of as full information as possible.

TRADE AGREEMENTS (ADVERTISING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the despatch of Government trade delegations to foreign countries, he will consider a plan in connection with these delegations of officially co-ordinated advertising in each country, showing in detail how our traders could individually implement or supplement the commercial treaties that have been arranged?

Mr. Stanley: The normal object of despatching Government trade delegations to other countries is to negotiate agreements affording facilities of which United Kingdom exporters can take advantage. Appropriate means are adopted of informing exporters of opportunities so created, and I am sure they will make the most of these by advertising or otherwise as their individual judgment may dictate.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that French quota committees are refusing import licences to British textile firms in consequence of the restriction on French imports imposed by his Department; and whether these matters have now been adjusted to the satisfaction of importers in both countries?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that there have been difficulties of this kind. Steps have been taken to bring them to the notice of the French authorities and I trust that the difficulties will now disappear. As I stated in the reply which I gave on 7th December to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) substantial relaxations have been recently made in respect of imports from France. The goods affected include certain textiles.

Brigadier-General Spears: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the President of the French Chamber of Trade in Paris on this subject?

Mr. Stanley: He was here recently, and was in touch with my Department.

EXPORT GOODS (HOME PURCHASES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to issue some statement as to which home-manufactured articles are in demand for export so that in cases where this demand was known to exist the public should, as far as possible, refrain from purchasing them and utilise the money they would have spent by lending it to the Government for the successful prosecution of the war?

Mr. Stanley: I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

ELECTRIC TORCH BATTERIES.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now take steps to improve the supply of batteries for electric torches?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 16th November to the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor) and on 22nd November to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson). I am arranging for the position to be reviewed in consultation with the manufacturers.

Mr. Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are now entering the darkest period of the year; is he further aware that the supply of batteries is considerably less than the demand, and is he also aware that the black-out is one of the most vexatious features of the present restrictions?

Mr. Stanley: I will not discuss the relative vexatiousness of the black-out or the comparative vexatiousness that would result from not having it; but with regard to torches, I realise that the supply is not equal to the enormously increased demand of the last two or three months. It is that subject which I am now discussing with the industry, but the House will realise that one cannot in a minute meet such an increased demand.

Mr. Adams: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is plenty of evidence that the most vexatious feature of the present restrictions is the blackout, which is most widely felt by the general population?

WHOLESALE PRICES.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the necessity for the equitable treatment of all

interests in price control, whether he intends to establish machinery which would enable the retailer to appeal against the increase of prices by the wholesaler where he considers it unjustified?

Mr. Stanley: In the case of goods to which the Prices of Goods Act may be applied, it will be open to the retailer to complain to a price regulation committee about an increase of the price charged to him by a wholesaler.

TYPEWRITERS (IMPORT).

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that typewriters are being imported into this country at approximately 50 per cent. of the pre-war quantities; and that the Import Licensing Department are issuing licences without consulting the British manufacturers; and will he take steps to consult the interested parties?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that substantial quantities of typewriters are being imported. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the purpose of the import restrictions is to secure economy in the use of foreign exchange to the greatest extent that is practicable, and this is a matter for the Government to decide. The Import Licensing Department has, however, asked United Kingdom typewriter manufacturers for certain information.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that increased consumption at home will improve our competitive force in the export markets of the world?

Mr. Stanley: That may be the case, but in restricting imports from various countries one has to take into consideration all the other circumstances as well.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (ACCOUNTS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that all companies directly or indirectly concerned with Government contracts or the supply of essential goods publish consolidated balance sheets giving the full net profit from each subsidiary and the amount of their holdings therein; and whether, to this end, he will make compulsory a standard form of publishing accounts?

Mr. Stanley: While Section 126 of the Companies Act, 1929, requires that there


shall be annexed to the balance sheet of a holding company a statement showing how the profits and losses of subsidiary companies have been dealt with in the accounts of the holding company, it expressly provides that it shall not be necessary to specify in any such statement the actual amount of any profits or losses. The question whether any modification of this statutory provision is required is one of the points which have been noted for examination when amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration, but I doubt whether it will be possible to introduce legislation on this subject in the near future.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the general public, out of whose efforts all these profits have to be produced, have a right to a true and accurate picture of the position; and is he aware that concealment is possible under the present regulations?

Mr. Stanley: The matter was under actual consideration long before the question of armament profits arose and this, as I say, was noted for amendment, but the amendment required would not be at all simple in character, and could not be undertaken except as part of a general review of company legislation.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it vitally important, having regard to the circumstances of the war, that there should be full and accurate public knowledge as to the profits which are being made by contractors to the Government?

Mr. Stanley: Everybody wishes the fullest and most accurate public knowledge that is practicable to be given, but this requires technical amendment of a particular part of the Companies Act, which cannot be done in any simple way. It is a matter which has been under consideration, quite apart from this question of armament profits.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that every company, whether it be a parent company or a subsidiary company, will, fact, pay Excess Profits Tax?

SHIPPING TONNAGE (COAL EXPORTS).

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Shipping whether arrangements are

being made to supply an adequate amount of shipping tonnage to meet the increased demand for coal from this country to markets overseas, particularly France?

The Minister of Shipping (Sir John Gilmour): Every effort is being made in this direction. The allocation of ships for the carriage of coal to France is being dealt with by the Anglo-French Permanent Executive Committee for Shipping, in consultation with the Anglo-French Coal Requirements Committee.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate shipping to meet the demands of France?

Sir J. Gilmour: There have been various factors in the increased demand for coal and t;he disappearance of neutral tonnage has affected the position, but we are doing everything we can to expedite the matter.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend keep under consideration the possibility of purchasing ships in foreign countries where it is profitable to do so?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

GERMAN EXPORTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare why the Order-in-Council dealing with German exports is based on the precedent of March, 1915, and not that of February, 1918, which was much more thorough?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Cross): The hon. Member is presumably referring to the Order-in-Council of February, 1917, not 1918. The recent Order-in-Council dealing with German exports was based on the precedent of March, 1915, because that was considered sufficient for the present to ensure that; goods of enemy origin or ownership do not reach their destination overseas, and because His Majesty's Government are anxious to cause as little loss and inconvenience to neutrals as is compatible with the due execution of their policy of intercepting German exports. The question whether any more vigorous procedure should be adopted must depend on future circumstances.

GERMANY AND RUMANIA.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he can give this House any information about the trade agreement between Germany and Rumania; and what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to divert Rumanian exports to this country?

Mr. Cross: A protocol renewing the economic agreement of last March between Germany and Rumania was signed on the 29th of September. The quotas of goods to be exchanged under the agreement are stated to be approximately equivalent to those for the preceding year with a proportionate increase to cover Rumanian trade with Bohemia and Moravia. Further commercial negotiations are reported to have been initiated in Bucharest last month by Herr Clodius, but so far as my information goes no result has yet been reached. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that it would not be in the public interest to indicate the measures which His Majesty's Government have taken. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that the importance of this aspect of economic warfare is not being neglected.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to take that answer as indicating that, as yet, the Government have not succeeded in diverting Rumanian goods from Germany to this country?

Mr. Cross: I could not accept the suggestion that that is what my answer indicates.

Mr. V. Adams: Can the Minister say whether the quota of oil exports from Rumania to Germany has not yet been altered?

Mr. Cross: No, Sir, I do not think I could give the hon. Member any information on that point. There is, as far as I am aware, no quota which could be said physically to relate to oil. I think it relates rather to certain foreign exchange considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TOBACCO SUPPLIES, EXPEDITIONARY FORCES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with the issue of cigarettes, tobacco and

matches to the forces in France; is he aware that some companies have only received 50 per cent. of what they were promised, and will he see that there is an equal distribution of the available supplies to all ranks; that there is no preferential treatment to any; and that the men in or near the lines are given first consideration?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Since the middle of October the full scale has been issued. Equal distribution is made to all ranks irrespective of their location, and further enormous quantities of tobacco and cigarettes have been given to the troops.

Mr. Hannah: Will the Government try to show appreciation of the action of Turkey by buying tobacco from that country?

ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNNERY.

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for War whether sufficient practice is given to gunners with anti-aircraft guns to ensure a high degree of accuracy against enemy aeroplanes?

Sir V. Warrender: All anti-aircraft units are given practice before taking their place in the scheme of anti-aircraft defence, whether at home or abroad.

LEAVE.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the instructions issued to commanding officers with regard to granting of leave to men whose relatives are seriously ill or who wish to attend the funerals of near relatives?

Sir V. Warrender: Commanding officers at home may at their discretion grant compassionate leave to military personnel in the event of the serious illness or death of a near relative. In the case of the British Expeditionary Force, leave cannot be granted for the sole purpose of attending a funeral, but it is always given, if possible, in the case of the serious illness of a father, mother, wife or child.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases in which a commanding officer has not so exercised his discretion, thus causing considerable grief to the parties concerned; and will he look into that matter?

Sir V. Warrender: I know that my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case and the peculiar circumstances attached to it, but he may rest assured that commanding officers do use their discretion in the circumstances I have indicated.

HORSES, DUNKELD, PERTHSHIRE.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the conditions under which horses were being kept by the Scottish Horse Regiment, Dunkeld, Perthshire, last month; that nearly 700 horses were standing in the rain in a field fetlock-deep in mud beside a river; that they were covered with ordinary night rugs which had been soaked through for 11 days; that the horses were thin and weak; that they remained tied up for 22 hours out of the 24, and that they were unfit for military or other service due to constant exposure to rain; and has this state of affairs now been rectified?

Sir V. Warrender: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) on Thursday last. It has since been ascertained that the horse lines were frequently moved and the only available roadways used for standings. Covered accommodation has now been provided.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that these questions were inspired by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and that, had a private individual been responsible, the society would have taken proceedings in this case?

COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers who have been given commissions, or approved for commissions, since the war started who have been educated at public elementary schools?

Sir V. Warrender: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Mander: Would not information of this kind be exceedingly interesting as showing the democratic character of officers in the Army at the present time, and is it not possible to obtain it?

Sir V. Warrender: Everybody knows that the system for provision of officers for the Army could hardly be more democratic than it is.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is there a record in the War Office of the educational qualifications of officers of His Majesty's Army?

Sir V. Warrender: I suppose this information could be obtained, but it would require great labour to do it, and I am reluctant to impose this burden on the Department in these days.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds candidates for commissions in possession of Part I of Certificate A are accepted as qualified to be dealt with by the joint recruiting board of some universities and public schools, while others demand full Certificate A?

Sir V. Warrender: Candidates for commissions between the ages of 18 and 31 were eligible for acceptance by reception units if they were in possession of full Certificate A, or, in the case of resident university undergraduates and graduates under the age of 25, if they were recommended by the joint recruiting boards which were set up at universities and university colleges to deal with this group of candidates. In the latter case, the possession of a military certificate was not a necessary qualification. Acceptance of candidates for commissions under this procedure ceased on 21st October, and all further candidates for commissions, other than those enrolled in the Army Officers Emergency Reserve, are now selected from the ranks.

COURTS-MARTIAL.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when a court-martial decision is ultimately given on members of His Majesty's Forces who have been detained in custody for an alleged offence pending such decision, no regard or mitigation is given for the period of detention prior to the court-martial; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir V. Warrender: It is laid down in the Rules of Procedure that the length of time during which the accused has been in confinement awaiting trial shall be taken into account when the sentence is considered.

CLERICAL WORK, WAR OFFICE.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for War what number of soldiers of the Regular and the Territorial Army have been freed from other military duties


to perform full-time clerical work on the headquarters staff of his Department; what number of these have been given executive rank; and what number have had previous experience as professional clerks?

Sir V. Warrender: Approximately 400 military clerks, normal entrants into the Regular or Territorial Armies, are employed in the War Office. About 160 of them state that they were clerks in civil life. I am not clear what the hon. Member means by executive rank.

Mr. McEntee: How is it that 250 out of 400 have never had any experience, prior to going into the War Office, in the work that they are actually doing now—clerical work; and why is it that so many qualified clerks are out of work and these people are being kept away from their own job of soldiering to do clerical work?

Sir V. Warrender: There have always been clerks in the Army, and a large proportion of these men who are now employed as clerks at the War Office are employed there under training.

Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. Gentleman say what social influence takes them away from the work that they ought to be doing to do the work of men who are out of work?

Sir V. Warrender: No social influence.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for War what number of men, who enlisted under the Military Service Act, 1939, have been freed from other military duties to perform full-time clerical duties at the War Office; and what number of these have had previous experience as professional clerks?

Sir V. Warrender: Eight soldiers called up under the Military Training Act, 1939, are employed as clerks in the War Office. They were all clerks in civil life.

Mr. McEntee: May I ask again what social influence brings young men of this character into the War Office, which is merely a hide-out from the job they ought to be doing in the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not know what the hon. Member means by social influence. There is no new departure in having soldiers employed at the War Office on clerical duties.

Mr. McEntee: I mean the same kind of influence that brings wives and daughters of highly paid officials into the Departments.

TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Territorial Army officers are not being allowed to occupy the higher posts in the Army, that brevet colonels of several years standing in the Territorial Army have been relieved of their brevet rank and that retired Regular officers are being brought back in the service as colonels sometimes after having been on the retired list for as long as 14 years; and whether, as Territorial Army officers complain that promotion is not being given on merit in accordance with assurances, he will give the necessary instruction to remove these grievances?

Sir V. Warrender: There are, at present, 98 Territorial Army officers of the rank of colonel and above holding higher posts in the Army. The relinquishment, on embodiment, by Territorial Army officers of the rank of brevet colonel, which they are given in peace, if recommended, on completion of tenure of command as lieutenant-colonel, places these officers on an equality with Regular lieutenant-colonels who do not obtain the rank of brevet colonel in the same circumstances. On disembodiment, the brevet rank will be restored. It is the intention that promotions and appointments during the war should be governed entirely by merit.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that correspondence that I have received shows that there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction among Territorial Army officers in regard to the position, and will he be good enough to discuss it with my right hon. Friend so as to alleviate the position if possible?

Sir V. Warrender: I shall be very glad to discuss it with my hon. Friend.

TECHNICIANS (TRANSFERENCE).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for War what course is open to a man who possesses technical qualifications such as the Army is appealing for, but finds himself posted to a unit where they will not normally be used, and desires to apply for transfer to a more appropriate unit?

Sir V. Warrender: He should apply to his commanding officer, stating his qualifications and experience.

Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend's answer make sufficient allowance for the fact that commanding officers are human, and if a man is a general, all-round man, will not any commanding officer be inclined to retain his services rather than to facilitate his transfer to where his skilled qualifications are required?

Sir V. Warrender: I think my hon. Friend is rather making out that commanding officers are inhuman. I should say they are human. We do encourage these transfers so far as they are compatible with the requirements of the Service.

MARRIAGE (PERMISSION).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will withdraw the instructions to commanding officers that soldiers should apply to them before marrying and present certificates from two responsible persons as to their bride's character?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the commanding officer of an infantry training centre has issued orders that soldiers wishing to get married must apply for permission to do so through their company commanders, and that such applications must be accompanied by certificates from two responsible persons as to the woman's character; and whether this order has his approval?

Sir V. Warrender: Commanding officers have not been instructed or authorised to require soldiers to obtain permission to get married, and I am not aware of any case in which a commanding officer has acted in the manner suggested.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that such a case did arise and that the War Office informed journalists who inquired that this authorisation did exist and had existed for a long time; and will he make further inquiries to see whether such a regulation does exist?

Sir V. Warrender: The answer is as I have stated. If the hon. Member can give me information concerning any particular case, I shall be glad to look into it.

BEER.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider arranging for the British forces to brew their own beer behind the lines, as the farmers did in England, and so obtain draught beer which the consumer prefers to bottled and which could be sold at 1d. per pint, a figure more consonant with soldiers' pay?

Sir V. Warrender: If my hon. and learned Friend will send detailed particulars of his scheme, together with an analysis of estimated costs, to my right hon. Friend, he authorises me to say that he will consider it.

Mr. Macquisten: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the ingredients of a gallon of beer cost less than a penny, that the ingredients of a bottle of champagne cost less than a halfpenny, and that there are plenty of soldiers in the regiments who could make it, just as they cook their meals? It ought to be issued with the rations.

MILITIAMEN (WINTER QUARTERS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that the troops now being called up will not be asked to serve under canvas during the coming winter?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, except in two or three cases where small numbers of men will be living temporarily in specially fitted store tents, having tarmac floors with floor-boards, beds, electric light, and fireplaces.

DRILL, EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that salutary drill has been insisted on in France which is not consistent with the assurances given by the Secretary of State in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke during the Debate on the Estimates; and is such drill in accordance with War Office policy?

Sir V. Warrender: Perhaps the hon. Member would give me particulars of what he has in mind by salutary drill.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take all possible steps to obtain the widest publication of the salient features of the White


Paper dealing with family and dependants' allowances (Cmd. 6138), set out in plain understandable language for the benefit of the very large numbers of the general population affected?

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for War, in what form it is proposed to make the contents of Command Paper 6138 known to men serving with the Forces, and to those to be subsequently enlisted?

Sir V. Warrender: The contents of Command Paper 6138 have been drawn from a number of Army Orders, Army Council Instructions, etc., which have been issued to the Army from time to time. A further Army Council Instruction setting out shortly the general position in regard to the allowances and the way to obtain them was issued on 23rd November last, with a special injunction that commanding officers will be responsible for seeing that it is brought to the notice of every officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer and man. The scheme has already been given considerable publicity through statements and answers to questions in the House, through the Press and by broadcast. The White Paper, which I think is written in plain, understandable language, is on sale to the general public and can be obtained through any bookseller for the price of twopence.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman see that copies of this document are available at Employment Exchanges, public assistance offices, unemployment insurance area offices and post offices, so that any person desiring this information can have it handy? Is he aware that there are still cases where husbands left home seven or eight weeks since and where no allowance has been received? Will the hon. Gentleman not only publicise the recent very clear statement, but facilitate payment in these outstanding cases?

Sir V. Warrender: We are trying to clear up outstanding cases as quickly as we can, and if hon. Gentlemen will send cases to me we will do our best to clear them up. With regard to having the White Paper available at the premises mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I will look into that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can this White Paper be simplified, as it is a curious mixture

of past and future and few people can understand it?

Mr. Sandys: Is it not the case that applicants whose cases are under review and who suffer hardship can, under present arrangements, receive relief pending a decision?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Maxton: Is there any appeal against the decision of the paymaster where the settlement is considered unfair?

Sir V. Warrender: These cases are settled on questions of fact, and paymasters are able to judge for themselves whether the facts are fulfilled. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would accuse them of unfairness.

Mr. Maxton: If my judgment of a case differs from that of the paymaster from my reading of the papers, to whom has the aggrieved soldier an appeal? Am I to receive hundreds of these cases each day and send them on to the Minister?

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Gentleman frequently writes to me.

Mr. Maxton: I do not want to do so.

Mr. McEntee: Will the hon. Gentleman give an answer that can be published which will enable these people to go to somebody and get relief while they are waiting? If they go to the Unemployment Assistance Board they are told that the Board have no powers.

Sir V. Warrender: I will let the hon. Gentleman have the information.

RAILWAY WARRANTS.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the difficulty and inconvenience experienced by men of the Armed Forces when proceeding on leave, by the fact that their railway warrants compel them to travel by specific railway routes, in many instances causing long delay and waiting at railway stations; and will he make some arrangements whereby their warrants will allow them to travel by any route that takes them to their home?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend is obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion, and effect has been given to it.

FIELD PUNISHMENT.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in cases where a soldier is awarded field punishment he forfeits not only his own pay but his allotment to his wife, often imposing serious hardship on the wife and family; and whether he will give consideration to any necessary alteration of the Army Regulations so as to prevent the suffering of innocent persons?

Sir V. Warrender: In such cases, the normal family allowance continues to be issued to the wife. If the period of forfeiture of pay is less than eight clays, the amount of the allotment also continues to be paid to the wife and is subsequently recovered from the soldier. An extension of the eight-day limit is being considered.

Mr. Silkin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of cases where a deduction has been made?

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Gentleman asks what the regulation is and I have given it.

WOMEN COOKS.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consult with the director of the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service as to the advisability of paying increased allowances on the basis of proficiency pay in other categories to proficient cooks with a view to interesting women in cooking and increasing the number of good cooks?

Sir V. Warrender: Members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service who qualify as cooks are eligible for additional pay of 4d. or 6d. a day, according to classification, while employed within the authorised establishment of cooks for their unit.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that cooking is an honourable profession, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to consult the director of the Auxiliary Territorial Service regarding the proposal in my question?

Sir V. Warrender: My answer states that they can get additional pay. I do not think the hon. Lady heard me.

ENTERTAINMENTS (ADMISSION CHARGE).

Mr. Levy: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that private soldiers are being charged a minimum of 3d. to attend performances

given for their entertainment; why is this charge made, and by whose authority; and will he take steps to ensure that soldiers shall be admitted to these shows free of charge?

Sir V. Warrender: The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have undertaken the responsibility for this entertainment and have created an organisation for the purpose. The charge of 3d. was authorised by the War Office after consultation with General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of Home Commands, and helps to recover some part of the cost of providing these entertainments. It is hoped to arrange that a proportion of seats in the smaller type of entertainment shall be available at 2d. The general evidence is that the soldier in no way objects to paying for his voluntary attendance at an entertainment.

Mr. Levy: Is my hon. Friend aware that only a few days ago, in a very large camp, the soldiers refused to attend a concert because of the imposition of this charge, and therefore the concert was very ill-attended?

Mr. Macquisten: Is not this just on a level with the overcharge for the soldiers' beer?

LIAISON OFFICERS (INTERPRETERSHIP EXAMINATIONS).

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Secretary of State for War how many liaison officers and members of the missions attached to the French Army and French general headquarters have not passed the interpretership examination in French; and how many have passed this examination?

Sir V. Warrender: Seven have qualified as interpreters and 15 have not. Of the latter, six were tested. In the case of the remainder, no test was considered necessary in the light of their previous experience and employment, and of knowledge of their qualifications in the French language.

Brigadier-General Spears: If a knowledge of French is a necessity for liaison officers, how can it be known that they are proficient in the language if they have not passed an examination?

Sir V. Warrender: Some of these officers were employed upon this work in the last war.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Why should any officers go to the trouble of passing an examination if the highest positions for which these qualifications are necessary are occupied by people who have never taken the trouble to pass them?

Mr. Attlee: Does the fact that somebody held a position as liaison officer in the last war necessarily prove that he can speak the French language?

Sir V. Warrender: I said that no test was considered necessary in their case, in the light of their previous experience. If they were good liaison officers in the last war, presumably they will make good liaison officers now.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Secretary of State for War whether tests by French national examiners are now in all cases substituted for the interpretership examination in French; who these examiners are and what tests they apply; and whether any certificate is given to officers passing these tests?

Sir V. Warrender: Interpretership examinations ceased at the beginning of the war. The examiner who tested the liaison officers was Monsieur André Turquet. The test was viva voce, and those who obtained 80 per cent. were considered by the examiner to have reached a standard equivalent to a First-Class Interpretership in the Army. No certificates were given.

GREATCOATS.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that large numbers of men stationed in this country are still without greatcoats; that many of them are not getting any allowance for the civilian coats they are wearing in the camps; that they are not allowed to go from the camp in these coats, and when on leave they go home without any overcoat and are subject to the rigours of the weather without protection, and with very little money in their pockets; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir V. Warrender: If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any instance of the statements made in his question, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Lunn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many firms who do

not want to make greatcoats, because they can make more profit out of smaller articles of wearing apparel?

HORSES (PURCHASE).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, when purchasing horses for the Army, buyers will be instructed, where possible, to give priority to geldings and mares unlikely to be of value for breeding?

Sir V. Warrender: It is a general rule that entire horses should not be bought for the Army. It is intended that future purchases should be by voluntary agreement with owners registered for that purpose, and it is not considered that any special instructions as to mares suitable for breeding will be necessary.

PRISONERS OF WAR (COST).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the £50 a day which it costs to keep 23 German officer prisoners includes the rent for the mansion and the cost of erecting the barbed-wire defences and guarding the prisoners?

Sir V. Warrender: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on Tuesday, 21st November, the £50 does not include rent, which has not yet been settled, nor does it include any capital expenditure. It includes the cost of guarding the prisoners.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider arranging that the House should meet in the forenoon and adjourn before darkness sets in?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have considered my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, but I regret that many practical difficulties make it impossible for the Government to propose an earlier meeting of the House.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that hon. Members are much better employed in the black-out here than they are likely to be anywhere else?

BANK DEPOSITS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will furnish the latest figures of the increase in total bank deposits since 1st August, and state as far as he is able the origin of such increase?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): This information is not issued through any official agency. So far as the clearing banks are concerned, the figures are published by the banks themselves regularly in the Press.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the Chancellor think that since Parliament has, obviously, no control over the issue of credits, it would be as well to abandon all pretence that we have really any control over the monetary system?

CZECH ASSETS.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that claims which have been established against the Czech assets now blocked in this country will be met without further delay; and that any necessary legislation will be carried through before the Christmas Recess?

Sir J. Simon: After full consideration His Majesty's Government have decided that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the right course in present circumstances will be for the unexpended balance of the free gift to be paid over as and when required to the trustees of the Czech Refugee Trust Fund and for the unexpended balance of the advance to be used for the payment of coupons of the Czecho-Slovak External Debt and for payments in respect of cash claims. A detailed scheme will be prepared and legislation will be introduced as soon as may be after the House reassembles.

Mr. Boothby: Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend to have the legislation printed so that we can have it before we rise for the Recess?

Sir J. Simon: I will consider that. I have seen a draft, but I am not sure whether it is in final shape.

Sir Irving Albery: Under this arrangement what will be the position of the 4½ per cent. Austrian internationally

guaranteed loan as regards the Czech portion of the guarantee?

Sir J. Simon: The service of the Austrian Guaranteed Conversion Loan was guaranteed as to 24½ per cent. by the Czecho-Slovak Government, and the position of coupons on bonds of this loan which have been certified as owned by British holders will be taken into account.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolutionof the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association calling for an increase in the payments to old age pensioners, in order to meet the increased cost of living; and whether he can now state when the report of the committee set up to consider the question of pensions and contributions will be issued?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I cannot at present add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 5th December.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be in a position to make a statement on old age pensions before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to increasing the rate of old age pensions?

Sir J. Simon: I am pressing on with the inquiry which I promised on 1st November, but I fear it will not be possible to make a statement before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Tinker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that our patience is well nigh exhausted, and are we not entitled to know where the difficulty is and whether the Treasury or the employers are holding something back? Are we not entitled to that in fairness to our constant requests?

Sir J. Simon: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is nobody who is holding anything back. The inquiry has to he made, and there are a number of difficult questions that have to be considered.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that in July last, when the promise was given to set up this inquiry, it was stated by the Minister that a short period was required and that five or six weeks were considered to be ample for the inquiry? Has not the whole time which was then anticipated as being necessary long since passed, and what is the reason for this continued delay?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's recollection is quite correct. My recollection is that it was stated that it was hoped to get the inquiry carried on far enough to enable an announcement to be made to the House in the autumn. That, I think, was the nature of the statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is more difficult to carry things on rapidly in time of war than it is in time of peace. I still hope, however, that I shall have an announcement to make after the sort of interval that was then suggested.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before Christmas?

Sir J. Simon: That was the question asked in No. 52 which I have just answered.

Mr. Woodburn: When the right hon. Gentleman does make a statement, does he expect it to be favourable?

Mr. Attlee: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my question. No. 52 said "before the Christmas Recess." Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any statement which may comfort the old age pensioners before Christmas?

Sir J. Simon: I think the statement will have to be made to the House.

Mr. Tinker: Will it be before the Recess? I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will invite the committee considering the question of old age pensions to consider the adoption of a scheme for providing assistance to necessitous old age pensioners in the contributory group from funds provided by transfer from the Unemployment Insur-

ance Fund of money which may be assumed to be unnecessary for the provision of unemployment insurance benefit to persons in the older age groups?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I do not think that an assessment of surplus moneys in the Unemployment Fund could be made on the basis suggested by the hon. Member, and even if it could I should hesitate to suggest that the surplus should be requisitioned for purposes quite different from those for which it was contributed.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on Thursday last I was informed by the Minister of Labour that there was a surplus of £42,000,000 in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Could not that be transferred to give an increase to old age pensioners, or, if there is a "snag" there, could it not be used to give an increase to the unemployed?

Sir J. Simon: As to the second suggestion, that might be considered, but I am sure the hon. Member will see that any surplus which there is in the Unemployment Insurance Fund belongs to the beneficiaries of that fund, and there are various ways in which it could be used, but that it could not be taken out for the purpose of being used for others.

POSTAL ORDERS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss to the revenue since poundage charges on postal orders were suspended; and whether, seeing that the chief benefit through such suspension accrues to those engaged in gambling, he will restore the former practice?

Sir J. Simon: I hope to announce a decision at an early date. In reply to the first part of the question, no real estimate can be given; on the hypothesis that the use of postal orders for remittance purposes, apart from use in connection with the pools, had continued on the same scale as before the war, the loss of revenue to date due to the absence of poundage might have been roughly £450,000, of which, however, only a small proportion would be attributable to orders used in connection with pools since they recommenced on a reduced scale last month.

MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION.

Captain Plugge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the assistance of the revenue and for public convenience, he will consider permitting motorists who motor only at week-ends to pay a proportion only of the horsepower tax during the winter quarter when otherwise their cars would be entirely laid up?

Sir J. Simon: I am not satisfied that any such proposal would assist the revenue, and in view of the practical difficulties involved both in the issue of the licences and in enforcement of the conditions to be attached thereto, I am afraid that cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

COMPENSATION (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is considering the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939?

Sir J. Simon: There has not yet been sufficient experience of the working of the Compensation (Defence) Act to make it possible to decide whether amending legislation is necessary.

Mr. Foot: If, as a result of additional experience, it is seen that the Act does cause undue hardship, will the right hon. Gentleman then consider the desirability of introducing amending legislation?

Sir J. Simon: That would have to be considered.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Has it not already been proved conclusively that it does create great hardships in agriculture?

CALL MONEY RATES.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the reduction of the Bank of England rate to 2 per cent. and of the Joint Stock Banks rate of interest on deposit to half per cent., he will take steps to see that the rates for call money are also reduced correspondingly to the pre-war figure?

Sir J. Simon: The question of the rate to be charged for call money by the London Clearing Banks to the Money

Market is one which falls to be decided by those banks themselves in the light of current monetary and commercial conditions.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is the Chancellor prepared to connive in the rate being kept at a figure which greatly increases the amount of money paid out of the public exchequer in respect of Treasury bills?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that that is the whole situation. There are a number of factors which enter into this question.

BANK PROFITS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that no profit accrues to the banks either by way of interest from any augmentation of the existing volume of general credit necessitated by his borrowings or from the subsequent extinction of such new short-term credits?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think it is practicable to distinguish between an increase of the volume of credit due to an expansion of the business of the country and an increase due to the borrowing of the Government, nor, if it were, would a confiscation of the profit earned on the excess be a suitable fiscal measure.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware of the growing indignation with a system which allows the banks to create their own credit out of nothing, at great expense to the country and to their own great advantage, and how long does he propose that this scandal shall be allowed to continue?

Mr. Macquisten: Are not the banks only able to create credit because their credit is good?

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted on those candidates for certain grades of the Civil Service who, having already successfully completed the written part of their examination in the summer, had been led to expect their viv â voce examination in the autumn, and have since heard that this has been cancelled; and whether, in view of the long and expensive preparation for


examinations which some of these candidates have undergone, he will allow them to complete their examination with a view to their employment whether before or after the end of the war?

Captain Crookshank: My answer to this question is the same as the reply which I gave on 7th December to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall).

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what will be the position of those candidates at the end of the war? Will they have to go through the whole examination again, or only the viv â voce parts, and will that take place two, three or four years after they have completed their preparation for the examination?

Captain Crookshank: I think that my decision is made clear in the answer which I have given the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of children who have returned to Glasgow from evacuation areas; and how many are receiving full-time or part-time education?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): According to an estimate made by Glasgow Corporation, 43,000 school children evacuated under the Government scheme have returned to Glasgow from receiving areas. There are 40,000 children in Glasgow presently receiving full-time or part-time education.

Mr. Davidson: What proportion of the 40,000 are receiving part-time education?

Mr. Colville: I cannot provide that figure.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of Glasgow school teachers now in evacuation areas; and the number now in Glasgow?

Mr. Colville: The total number of Glasgow school teachers now in reception areas is 1,750; the number now in Glasgow is 4,350.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish

local authorities have been consulted by his Department on the question of education during the past two months?

Mr. Colville: During the past two months, the Scottish Education Department have been in consultation with the two associations which are representative of all the education authorities in Scotland and are regularly consulted by the Department on questions of importance. The Department are in constant touch with individual education authorities through His Majesty's inspectors in charge of districts, who are always available for consultation; and their officers at headquarters in Edinburgh have had the advantage of discussion with members or officials of 20 authorities. Educational questions arising out of the evacuation scheme have also been the subject of consultation with the representatives of authorities on the advisory committee.

Mr. Davidson: When will full-time educational facilities be operating generally throughout Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I could not answer that question, but I hope as soon as possible.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps through these consultations to obtain the release of two Glasgow teachers who have been occupied with two scholars each in Wigtonshire and, whose return to Glasgow is prevented by the attitude of the Wigtonshire Education Authority?

Mr. Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

HERRING (CANNING FACTORIES).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps with the appropriate Government Departments to secure that more canning factories be set up in the Clyde area to make available, for service men and the general public, the abundant supplies of herring in these waters?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): have been asked to reply. From such in formation as I have been able to obtain. I see no reason to think that the capacity of the existing canning factories is insufficient to cope with any demands that are likely to be made upon them. The Ministry of Food is, however, pursuing the matter further, in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Gibson: If I give the hon. Gentleman information in regard to a canning factory in that area I indicated in my question, which is standing idle, will he give die matter his attention?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be very glad to have that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRAUDULENT SOLICITORS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Attorney-General whether he has noted the observations of the learned judge at Manchester Assizes on 24th November when passing sentence of five years' penal servitude upon a solicitor on 13 separate counts for fraudulent conversion of clients' property; and whether he will introduce legislation to require that solicitors should submit their professional accounts annually to an auditor of the Board of Trade?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): As I stated on 11th October last, in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville), the Law Society are anxious to reintroduce at the earliest practicable moment a Bill on this subject embodying the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee which considered it last Session. Those recommendations, as my hon. Friend will be aware, included a recommendation for the examination of accounts.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a very widespread feeling in the country that the public deserve to be better protected against this form of brigandage?

The Solicitor-General: I am aware that the situation is not satisfactory, and it is desirable to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: If a solicitor is capable of fraudulently converting his client's property would he not be capable of submitting incorrect accounts?

The Solicitor-General: There are ways of examining accounts yearly to see whether they are fraudulent or not.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Are the Government ready to give facilities for the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot answer that question. No doubt if a Bill were promoted in another place by the Law Society, discussion as to time here would take place through the usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in Article 49 of the Royal Warrant it is stated that in the case of an unmarried soldier killed in the present war his parents cannot receive a pension unless they are in pecuniary need or there is whole or part incapacity of self-support; and whether he will see to it that these words are deleted from the Royal Warrant so that pensions can be paid in all cases?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The conditions of Article 49 of the Royal Warrant are those which have for many years been applicable in Great War cases and follow generally the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House in 1919.

Mr. Lunn: Were these the conditions in the last war; if not, cannot we have equal conditions in this war?

Sir W. Womersley: That matter is being dealt with by my advisory committee.

Mr. T. Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that parents are entitled to more consideration than the Warrant gives?

Sir W. Womersley: Again, that matter is under consideration.

Mr. George Griffiths: Why are these people under observation by the means test authorities all the time? All the time they are in the homes of the soldiers, and it is abominable. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter.

Sir W. Womersley: It is based upon our experience in dealing with cases in years gone by.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the issue of a copy of the form of application for special assistance, M.S.A.C. 21, to all present recipients of family or dependants' allowances through the medium of the offices of payment, instead of


through the offices of the Unemployment Assistance Board to individual applicants?

Sir W. Womersley: I have made inquiries as to the hon. Member's suggestion, but I am afraid that it would be impracticable to adopt it.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Central Advisory Committee or the War Service Grants Advisory Committee are to give consideration to the revision of the present conditions governing the issue of dependants' allowances?

Sir W. Womersley: Neither my Central Advisory Committee nor the War Service Grants Advisory Committee has any responsibility with regard to the dependants' allowances issued by the Service Departments under their own regulations.

Mr. Williams: Has not the Minister of Pensions taken over the job of administering allowances although no allowances are possible under the regulations issued by the War Office?

Sir W. Womersley: We are dealing with war service grants additional to the grants made under the regulations.

Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister forced to admit dependants' allowances where dependants' allowances are permissible; and since, under the existing regulations, only one out of 20 will be able to qualify for a dependants' allowance, are we to understand that these regulations are under reconsideration?

Sir W. Womersley: I am concerned with what are known as hardship cases.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the hardship frequently caused to the relatives of soldiers who die on service from causes described by the War Office as not directly attributable to service, he will reconsider the present regulations and take some early opportunity to explain to the House the decisions arrived at?

Sir W. Womersley: The question whether death during service is attributable to such service or not is decided in the light of the man's medical and service history on the advice of the responsible medical officers. If the hon.

Member has any particular case in mind in which he has special, reason to question the decision, I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. Stewart: May I inform my hon. Friend that I have a case which I have pressed upon the War Office and which has been examined in great detail without any satisfaction at all? May I come to him with that case?

Sir W. Womersley: I suggest that my hon. Friend transfers it to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH FINANCIAL AGREEMENT.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make as the result of his recent conversations with the French Minister of Finance.

Sir J. Simon: I am glad to be able to inform the House that a comprehensive agreement has been arrived at between the British and French Treasuries which will secure, in the field of finance, a cooperation which corresponds to that already announced after the last meeting of the Supreme War Council in other fields of activity. The proposed financial agreement was the subject of discussion between myself and Monsieur Paul Reynaud, the Minister of Finance in France, when he visited this country a short time ago; in Paris last week we were able to carry matters further, and have reached a conclusion as to the arrangements necessary to carry out our purpose. I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Summary of the points agreed upon; but the House may be glad to have two or three of the main features stated now.
In the application of the principle of monetary solidarity between the two countries, it is agreed that it is in our common interest to avoid, during the war, alterations in the existing rate of exchange between the pound and the franc. We have further made mutual arrangements which will enable each country to cover its requirements for the currency of the other country and to utilise such currency freely as agreed between us, without any question between ourselves of having to find gold. Thus, sterling held by the French monetary authorities will be available for


expenditure throughout the sterling area and francs held by the United Kingdom monetary authorities will be available for expenditure throughout the French Empire. Neither Government will raise a foreign loan or credit except in agreement with, or jointly with, the other Government. Neither Government will impose fresh restrictions on the imports from the other country during the war for protective purposes or for exchange reasons. The two Governments will share certain items of expenditure incurred in the common cause, such as financial assistance to other countries and the cost of the Armed Forces of their Polish ally, in proportions which have been worked out between us. It is intended to have frequent meetings between the two Treasuries to settle technical questions and to examine more general problems, such as those of price policy in the two countries and the position of the Allied Governments as regards their resources in gold and foreign exchange. The whole arrangement will remain in force until six months after the signature of the peace treaty.
I think the House will warmly welcome this new proof of the reality of close co-operation between France and ourselves, and I would wish to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the friendly and understanding spirit in which all these questions have been dealt with by Monsieur Reynaud.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether joint steps have been taken to control the expansion of currency in the two countries? He did not mention that point.

Sir J. Simon: I think, perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough, he should wait and see the actual summary of the agreement which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the summary of points agreed upon between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and M. Paul Reynaud:

1. The two Governments have agreed that it is in the interest of both countries to avoid alterations in the existing official rate of exchange between the pound and the franc.
2. The francs required by the United Kingdom (including those for the B.E.F.) will be provided against payment in sterling, and the sterling required by France (including that required for the purchase of raw materials in the British Empire) will be provided against.

francs. Both countries will for the duration of the war be in a position to cover the whole of their requirements in the currency of the other country by payment in their own currency without any question of their having to find gold.
3. The sterling held by the French monetary authorities will be available for expenditure throughout the sterling area, and the francs held by the United Kingdom monetary authorities will be available for expenditure throughout the French Empire.
4. The question of sharing equitably the expenses necessitated by the conduct of the war which the two Governments have to defray in gold and dollars will be kept under review.
5. The United Kingdom and French Treasuries will have frequent meetings to review the position of the Allied Governments as regards their resources in gold and foreign exchange.
6. Neither Government will raise a foreign loan or credit except in agreement with (or jointly with) the other Government.
7. Neither Government will impose fresh restrictions on the imports from the other country during the war for protective purposes or for exchange reasons.
8. The two Governments will maintain contact as regards their policy in regard to prices.
9. Finally, the two Governments will share certain items of expenditure in the common cause such as financial assistance to other countries and the cost of the armed forces of their Polish ally. The contribution of the two Governments will be fixed on a basis which will take due account of the national wealth of each. In general, the French contribution will be 40 per cent. and the United Kingdom contribution 60 per cent. of the total.
10. These arrangements will remain in force till six months after the signature of the Treaty of Peace.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make to the House concerning business?

The Prime Minister: I presume the right hon. Gentleman means the business today. After we have disposed of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Postponement of Enactments Bill and the Draft Unemployment Assistance Amendment Regulation, we desire to obtain the Committee stage of the Gas and Steam Vehicles (Excise Duties) Resolution, and for this purpose the Eleven o' Clock Rule is being suspended. This is only a precautionary measure. We also intend tonight to move the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee on National Expenditure.
I might take this opportunity of informing the House of the preliminary Business which we desire to obtain before the Secret Sitting begins to-morrow. We would like to obtain the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution with regard to the reduction of motor taxation for vehicles using gas. The Bill could then be brought in and be ready for Second Reading after the Recess.
I am informed that a Motion to approve the Newcastle-under-Lyme Gas Order is being handed in to-day. The Order is unopposed and ordinarily it would have come before the House at the end of the sitting. I hope that the House will agree to dispose of these two items at the beginning of Business to-morrow.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime Minister.]

SECRET SITTING.

MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.

Mr. Foot: I would like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a question relating to the proposed Secret Session to-morrow. I wish to ask whether it is not the fact that any Member who repeated outside, even in private conversation, anything said in this House during a Secret Sitting would be guilty of a breach of Privilege or, alternatively, of a gross contempt of this House and would be liable to such penalties as the House is able to impose?

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked whether it is not the fact that any Member who repeated outside, even in private conversation, anything said in this House during a Secret Sitting would be guilty of a breach of Privilege, or alternatively, a gross contempt of this House, and would be liable to such penalties as the House is able to impose.
Before I deal with the specific point raised in the hon. Member's question, it may be well if I remind the House that the right to publish Debates which take place here has never been conceded by the House and it is only by the sufferance of the House that they are published in the ordinary course. Many Orders forbidding the publication of Debates remain on the Journals, and the House has expressly refused to waive this prohibition

(Parliamentary Debates (1875) 224, chapters 48 and 1165). Some of these orders are cited in Erskine May, thirteenth edition, page 82, and others are referred to in footnote 3 on the same page.
These Orders refer primarily to publication in print and might not be held to apply to the disclosure of Debates in private conversation. I refer to them here as showing that the House has always claimed the right to control the communication of its Debates to the public.
With regard to the disclosure in private conversation of what has passed in a Secret Session, I should prefer to found myself on the fundamental rule of Privilege that wilful disobedience of an Order of the House constitutes a contempt of the House and may be punished at its discretion as a breach of Privilege.
A Secret Sitting is preceded by an Order 1 that strangers do withdraw, and also by a resolution that "the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session." The intention of the House that the proceedings at such a sitting should not be divulged could not be more clearly indicated. A Member who discloses even in private conversation what has taken place at such a Sitting will be wilfully disobeying an order of the House, and will be thereby committing a gross breach of Privilege. He will render himself liable to punishment by such of the penalties, within its power to inflict, as the HOUSE' of Commons deems to be appropriate to the offence—by reprimand, by commitment, or even—in an extreme case—by expulsion.
In order to complete my statement on the general position as I see it, I may refer to the Regulation prohibiting publication of the proceedings at a Secret Session made by Order in Council under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. The penalties for a breach of this Regulation would, of course, be inflicted by a court of law, and it is no part of my duty to seek to determine what particular actions are covered by this Regulation. But I may say confidently that the statutory offence created by this Regulation is in addition to the offence subsisting under parliamentary law, which would be constituted by wilful disobedience of an Order made by this House, and does not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the House to punish the offence committed against itself.

Sir I. Albery: Arising out of the statement you have just made to the House, Sir, may I ask what would be the position of a Member who had attended the Secret Sitting conversing with a fellow Member who had not been present?

Mr. Speaker: It would seem to be rather a harmless offence.

Mr. Denman: With regard to the procedure to-morrow, I understand there is to be a short discussion on the Motion that we go into this Secret Sitting. Will that be reported or will the Reporters' Gallery be cleared?

Mr. Speaker: No, the discussion will not be reported.

Mr. McEntee: What would be the position of a Member who was present in the House if he conversed with a Member who was not present in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard by somebody else?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question I could not answer.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

David Robertson, esquire, for the Borough of Wandsworth (Streatham Division).

Ralph Humphrey Etherton, esquire, for the County of Lancaster (Stretford Division).

CIVIL (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).

Appropriation Accounts presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for the Civil Services for the year ended 31st March, 1938, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and upon certain Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 6.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).

Appropriation Accounts presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for Revenue Departments for the year ended 31st March, 1939, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and upon Revenue and certain Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 7.]

THE WAR IN THE AIR.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

4.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): When I made my last statement to the House on l0th October I dealt with the opening phases of the war in the air. I referred to the efficiency of the arrangements for the mobilisation of the Royal Air Force, to the constant watch which was being maintained by units of the Coastal Command, to the gallant raids carried out on German ports, and to the reconnaissances carried out over large areas of Germany, bringing home to the German people the range and ubiquity of the British bomber.
At that date we had not yet been able to test out in actual operations the state of preparedness of our air defences. But already, when I had made my statement, this first chapter of the war in the air was drawing to its close, and I should date the beginning of the second chapter with the raid carried out on warships in the Firth of Forth by German aircraft on 16th October. Since that date, though we have still had no great aerial battles, no encounter of Armadas in the air, there has been steadily increasing activity. We have had to deal with a series of reconnaissances and raids over this country, some by single aircraft and some in force, and we have thus been able to test out the strength of our defences and the efficiency of our organisation. We have also, both in this country and in France, been able to try out our aircraft in combat with the enemy.
The results, and the conclusions which we have been able to draw from them, though of necessity provisional, are certainly encouraging. We have been able to satisfy ourselves by actual operations that the various elements of our air defences, the anti-aircraft guns and searchlights, the fighter squadrons, the balloon barrages for close defence and the units of the observer corps, have been successfully welded into an efficient and adaptable system under the operational control and command of one Commander-in-Chief.
This system of unified control, the strength of which is steadily increasing, has justified our expectations and gives

us the great advantage that our whole defence organisation can thus be adapted and adjusted to meet the exigencies and requirements of any particular moment and circumstance.
In this great organisation every element is manfully playing its part—the Territorial Units manning the guns and searchlights and, by no means least, if I may single them out for special mention, the personnel of the Balloon Barrage and of the Observer Corps. They have to keep their constant watch with little excitement through the long hours of waiting for the sight or sound of an enemy machine. Many of them are stationed at remote places, and many have had to carry out their duties in difficult conditions. But we know that we can fully rely upon them to carry them out, uneventful though they may be, with efficiency and uncomplaining spirit.
Our fighter squadrons, regular and auxiliary alike, have taken a heavy toll of such of the enemy as have tried to cross our air defences, and we can, I am certain, justifiably claim a definite superiority in our aircraft over the Germans. Our Hurricanes and Spitfires have been in contact with Dornier, Dunker and Heinkel bombers in turn, and there can be no doubt that they possess a decisive margin of advantage. Even more encouraging, I think, is the knowledge of the superiority that thy have shown over the German fighters. Not only have they twice the gun-power of the Messerschmitt, but they have markedly better flying characteristics and are superior both in control and manoeuvreability at high speeds.
Meanwhile the ceaseless watch of the Coastal Command continues in the freezing winds and sleet of winter; and I know that the First Lord joins with me in paying a special tribute to the magnificent courage and skill of these units and to the success which has attended their efforts. Over wide areas of the ocean our aircraft have to throw out their defensive screens and to maintain their ceaseless patrols day after day over the North Sea and the western approaches of the Atlantic Ocean. Every day they escort the many convoys which are constantly on the move, and in the course of their flights they have on many occasions encountered and shot down enemy aircraft. They have carried


out attacks on submarines on 57 occasions, and in 19 cases we can be sure that substantial damage has been caused. Every month over 1,000,000 miles are flown: every day a distance that is greater than the circumference of the globe.
Perhaps I could instance the achievements of one squadron which are typical of many. Since the outbreak of war this squadron—No. 269—though only formed just three years ago, has flown 3,000 hours on long-distance tasks over the sea by day and by night in all conditions of weather. Its aircraft have already travelled nearly 500,000 miles, an average of 6,700 miles a day since the start of hostilities. They have brought in detailed reports for safety and contraband purposes on some 700 merchant vessels: they have sighted seven enemy submarines, and carried out attacks on five occasions. Their motto is "Omnia Videmus" {We See Everything), a motto that is fully justified.
I should also like to refer, if I may far one moment, to one operation which I believe throws special credit on the units of the Coastal Command. A British submarine was damaged by heavy weather and was for three days in difficulty in the North Sea. An air escort was sent out and the submarine was able to proceed for repairs into a Scandinavian port. While they were escorting the submarine our aircraft engaged a number of enemy aircraft arid shot one Dornier down into the sea. When the repairs had been effected, the aircraft once more provided an escort for the submarine and she returned successfully to her home port.
In the Bomber Command, too, the units have added to their laurels, and the recent attack on German warships at Heligoland was yet another of the fine offensive actions of the war. It was a particularly difficult and dangerous operation, requiring skill, daring and resolution, but our bombers reached their objectives successfully, registered direct hits with heavy bombs on the enemy and returned safely to their base. It is significant that in the course of this flight the aircraft were engaged by some 20 Messerschmidt fighters and that two of these which pressed home their attack, were driven down and one of them certainly destroyed. This, I

think, is a very striking tribute to the formidable gun defences of our bombers.
Reconnaissances over Germany have been continued and our aircraft have visited Hamburg, Bremen, the Rhur, Berlin, Munich and Nürnberg in succession, and in many cases on more than one occasion. Conditions are more difficult now, but our men with their machines have stood up to the elements in the same spirit of daring as they have shown in facing the fire of anti-aircraft batteries and the fighters sent up by the enemy. Of the value of these flights there can be no doubt, and the Germans have paid us the significant compliment of copying our ideas.
The Royal Air Force units in France have been greatly encouraged by the visit of His Majesty the King and are carrying out yeoman service. They have adapted themselves with the greatest cheerfulness to the very different conditions of service, and they are working everywhere in the closest comradeship with the French. Everywhere the morale of our Air Force is magnificent. We have a definite superiority over the Germans in the initiative and skill of our pilots, and it is, I am sure, no cause for surprise that nearly one-third of the men who are now registering under the National Service Act are expressing a preference for service in the air.
Many of our personnel come from overseas and we shall soon be having many more. Squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force will in due course be playing their part in active air operations in Europe, and in the meanwhile a Canadian fighter squadron has been formed in this country from Canadian personnel now serving with the Royal Air Force, and is about to take its place in the first line of air defence of this country. A full squadron of our latest four-engined flying boats will soon be operating as a unit of the Royal Australian Air Force, and a squadron of the latest bombers is being formed with New Zealand personnel. The Union of South Africa have initiated a large expansion of their Air Training Organisation and of their first-line strength and have already carried out valuable coastal reconnaissances. Southern Rhodesia, too, are bringing their existing air unit to full strength and will man two additional squadrons.
I am also glad to be able to inform the House that arrangements have been made under which certain Polish squadrons will be re-formed in this country under the command of Polish officers. These squadrons will be attached to the Royal Air Force, and will in due course take their place in the front line. The first detachment of Polish airmen has already arrived.
As regards the important matter of production, I am glad to say that the mere numerical output to-day is more than twice what it was a year ago, and that the types that are now passing from the factories to units represent, not only in man-hours of construction but in their efficiency as weapons of war, not a two-fold, but a manifold, accretion of strength. The great organisation that we have created is growing steadily as new factories come into production and as additional firms become engaged in the field of sub-contracting. We have also new and more powerful types of aircraft, which have already flown and which will shortly be able to operate against the enemy.
I said at the beginning of my account to-day that we were now in the second chapter of the war in the air. That in its turn may be drawing to a close, and we must be prepared, perhaps soon, perhaps in the Spring, for another and more strenuous and difficult chapter. It is clear that we must continue unceasingly in all our efforts and extend them; and we must not for a moment relax the state of our preparedness. But we can be confident that our air defence system is sound, that our personnel and aircraft are superior to the enemy's, and that our strength, defensive and offensive, is growing steadily, so that every day we are in a better position to establish our ascendancy in the air.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: While I am sure the whole House appreciates the very high record of achievement and the fine morale of the Air Force, and while my hon. and right hon. Friends reserve the right to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman in other conditions to-morrow, I should like now to ask him one question, similar to that which I asked him once before. Is he satisfied, especially in view of these new attempts to lay mines from German aircraft in the neighbour-

hood of this country, that there is proper co-operation and liaison between the Air Force, the Admiralty and the War Office in taking the most effective steps to deal with this German invention?

4.21 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I should like to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the tribute which the Secretary of State paid to the spirit and qualities of the Royal Air Force. We are very glad, indeed, to hear the news which he gave of the superiority of our machines and of the ascendancy which our pilots have established over the enemy. We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the most interesting statement which he has made to us. At the same time, I observe that the Under-Secretary for Air is back from his visit to Canada. I am sure that the House will be interested on some occasion, before very long, to hear some account of what has been happening in Canada, of the development of the plans which have been made there for the training of the Empire flying force and for the reinforcement of our air effort in the war.
May I also briefly refer to a point which I have mentioned before? I do not want to press this too far, but I want to refer to the thirst which is felt by the public for information about the achievements of the Air Force. Many of us have heard that photographs exist which most graphically depict some of the things which our pilots have been able to do in some of those actions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I would urge that as much information as possible should be given, both by written description and by photographs, to the people of this country, who are so anxious to know what these pilots are doing.
May I refer to a point which I made after the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke the other day? The Secretary of State said that the Air Force had had to deal with a great number of reconnaissances, and some of those reconnaissances have been over that part of the country with which I am, perhaps, more familiar than the Secretary of State himself. It is a little—perhaps "disturbing" is too strong a word—irritating to hear of these frequent visits by German aircraft to the Orkneys and Shetlands, and I might even say to the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, and to know


that they have escaped—except on the first occasion, when they were very faithfully treated in the Orkney Islands—with few casualties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that the most effective steps possible will be taken to deal with such reconnaissances in the Northern islands and in some counties of Scotland.

4.25 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Statements have been made in both the Dutch and the Swiss Press, and even in our Press about five weeks ago, that the Germans were preparing the Siegfried Line under floodlight, and that flares were going all night. It seems strange that they should be allowed to do that under the eyes, so to speak, of our Air Force. I have repeatedly been asked questions about this at meetings, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can give me any information?

4.26 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to inquire into the matter, and I will see her about it. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) about co-operation between the Air Force and the Admiralty, I can assure him that it is of the greatest possible extent. Almost every day we are in conference with the Admiralty, and the First Lord and myself are conferring with our advisers this evening. Relations between the Admiralty and the Air Force are all that tan be desired, and the House can rely on our constant endeavours with a view to helping one another to do all we can to meet the present situation. I was very gratified when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition referred to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am sure that every hon. Member is glad to see him back again, but no one is more glad than I am. I have missed him very much while he has been away, and I am glad to see him back safe and sound, and to know that he will be able to continue giving me the great help that he has always given me while we have been associated.
I shall do all that is possible to give information about the work of the Air Force. I have given great personal consideration to this matter during the past three weeks. On the one hand, there is the need, to which the Air Staff must pay

particular attention, and for which they have a heavy responsibility, for safeguarding national security. On the other hand, there is a very great desire on the part of the public—and I think quite rightly—for all the information that can reasonably be given about our Defence forces, and particularly, at this moment, about the Air Force, on which such heavy duties fall. I will do all I can in that connection. Finally, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as his part of the country is concerned, we shall give it special consideration, and I hope that next time we have a visit to the Orkneys very favourable results will ensue.

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

4.29 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to add:


(10)





1Edw. 8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6.c. 31.
The Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937.
The Whole Act.
—


I should explain that, as the Government had already indicated that they were not prepared, save in very special circumstances, in the present situation to undertake new financial commitments in respect of the Special Areas Act, it had been decided to omit the Act. Upon representations being made by the Front Opposition Bench the Government agreed, however, to re-insert the Act. In doing so, however, they wished to make it clear that the maximum effort of the nation must at the moment be directed to the war. I would remind the House, however, that substantial expenditure will be incurred after 31st March next in respect of past commitments and measures undertaken. In these circumstances, while the Act remains on the Statute Book to the


end of the year, there will be only comparatively minor expenditure in addition to that which would have been incurred if the Act had been allowed to expire and provision had been made by Order-in-Council under Section 7 of the Act of 1934 to continue the measures already undertaken. I am much obliged to the Members of the Opposition for meeting me, and I believe they will agree that I have met them handsomely.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: It is my intention to be as brief as the right hon. Gentleman, but may I say how much we appreciate the fact that the Government met the representation which was made to them and that they have now included the Special Areas Act in this Bill. We were very much afraid that, if that Act had been left out, there would have been an impression created that the Special Areas problem of this country had been solved. We certainly do not agree that such an impression should be created, because we still have with us the problem of the Special Areas. With these few words, I would again like to express our thanks to the Government for including that Act in this Bill.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I am rather surprised to hear that it has been arranged that this thing should go through formally, because some of us have in past years taken a very keen and deep interest in the Special Areas. I understand that the Government did not intend to renew the Special Areas Act, but as the Opposition have asked for the Act to be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the Government are prepared to do it, but they are not, apparently, prepared to operate the Act. If I understood the Minister aright he said that everything must give place to the war, and we can, therefore, expect this particular Act to be inoperative. If that is the position of the Government, it is not only a farce but an insult to the Special Areas. The Minister has to keep in mind the fact that we have had the Special Areas Act in operation for five years, but in one part of the Special Area with which I am connected things are no better now than they were at the beginning. The Special Areas Act there has been a complete failure. In answering a question on 10th November which had

been asked by one of my colleagues, the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart), the Minister said that we had in the county of Durham no fewer unemployed than 56,000, and that of that number no fewer than 6,000 had been out of employment for more than five years, and yet with that condition of things obtaining the Government are proposing tonight not to operate the Special Areas Act. Things have been bad enough with it, but the Government are proposing to drop it altogether.
This is not the only blow received by the Special Areas since the beginning of the war. The Government, in August, brought in a Bill—the Loan Facilities Bill; and the Minister's name was on the back of that Bill—which, I do not hesitate to say, was one of the best Bills that the Government have ever brought in, but now they have withdrawn it. It was for the purpose of giving loans towards the starting of new industries. The only trouble that some of us had was that we considered that it ought to apply to all industries as well as to new Industries only, and now, merely as a shop-window display, they are putting the Special Areas Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, with no intention of operating it. That is not fair to the Special Areas, and the Government ought to make up their mind that the time has come when they should do something for those areas. One can understand that the Government must prosecute the war, but they should also not forget the people at home during this time. The Government themselves have been largely responsible for the huge mass of poverty in the Special Areas, and now they say to the people in those areas, "We pushed you into poverty, and, as far as we are concerned, you can stop there." On the last occasion we proposed Amendments which would have made the Special Areas Act of some use to the Special Areas, and now the Government are saying, "We will put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but we have no intention of operating the Act." That is not fair on the part of the Government.
The Government have a mania for setting up new Departments. The Minister of Labour started a new central register, but the Ministry of Labour has not seen to it that the unemployed got the jobs that have been created in these


new Departments. These jobs have been taken by men already in receipt of large salaries or else in receipt of big pensions. If the Government had said, "Here are thousands of men who have been unemployed for years, and having due regard to their ability, we will see to it that these men are put into these Departments," we could have understood the position. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that the Ministry of Labour does not care a tinker's curse for the unemployed. It has not attempted to get the unemployed work. Although the Special Areas Act has resulted in the starting of trading estates, all the expenditure that the Government have so far spent on munitions has not helped us in South-West Durham. We are to-day as we were when the Special Areas Act was first put into operation, and have thousands of unemployed. The Government ought to be prepared, at a time like this, when the cost of living is increasing, to do something in order to find employment for these men. It is because I feel that the Government have done so little and intend to do still less that I protest against their putting the Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill without any intention of operating it.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Price: I want to raise one point, and to express the hope that this will not mean that the Act is to be put into cold storage in any way. I am at the moment engaged in some correspondence with the Minister about my particular division, and I would like to take this opportunity to stress the fact that we are very much concerned there with the position. The Act cannot be applied in the same way as it can be applied in South Wales or in the areas which fully qualify under the Act, but we are at least entitled to some benefits. Therefore, anything which may appear to put the Act into cold storage is a matter for serious consideration for us. The position in the Forest of Dean is that we have all round us new industrial areas growing up, and men are being compelled to go long distances by omnibus routes, at great expense to themselves, and even risk to their health too, whereas, if it were possible, by the application of this Act, to assist and encourage the development of industries in this semi-distressed area, that would obviously be the wisest thing to do. There is a danger that there will be a shortage of certain

types of labour if the present development goes on. I have no doubt that if the Act were applied in such a way as to impel new industries to come into the Forest of Dean we should get much of the labour of the men who are now making these long journeys to work. I, therefore, wish to stress the importance of these areas, which are not exactly Special Areas in the full meaning of the words but which are distressed, and if certain advantages are to be got out of the Act, they should not be lost sight of, and the Act should be kept working for the benefit of these areas as well as of the Special Areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

PREAMBLE.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "expire," to the end of line 5, and to insert:

"(a) in the case of all those Acts except the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, on the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-nine;
(b) in the case of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and forty."
This Amendment is consequential.

Mr. Batey: Does that mean that the Minister is simply putting the Special Areas Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act with the object of it lasting until next March?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. It means extending it from next March until December.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

POSTPONEMENT OF ENACTMENTS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

4.46 p.m.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 17 and 18.
Those of us in particular who served on the Committee which discussed this question of house-to-house collection formed a very strong view that legislation was urgently desirable, and this House, in response to our report, passed legislation on 28th July, and it is only now, in the second week of December, that the Government tell us that they are unable to permit the Bill to operate as from 1st January, 1940, as was intended by the House when the Bill was passed in July. My view and the view of those associated with me in the Amendment is that, notwithstanding the difficulties which have admittedly occurred, it should not have been too difficult for the Home Office and the local authorities to take the necessary steps to enable the Act to come into operation on 1st January. Such an Act is far more necessary now than would have been the case in normal times. We have instances to quote indicating that since the outbreak of hostilities this question of house-to-house collection and the formation of societies or one-man institutions for the profit of the individuals concerned has assumed a much greater proportion than was the case previously. I saw in the "Evening Standard" last week this note:
Police are searching for a man who has defrauded several people by obtaining from them donations on behalf of Crystal Palace Football Club. Mr. George Irwin, manager of the club, said to-day, 'We have not authorised anyone to collect money on our behalf, and we have never had need to appeal for donations. We were not aware of the activities of this man until we received a cheque from a Beckenham doctor, who declined to hand over cash to the man when asked, but said he would send his cheque direct to the club. We have returned the cheque.'
I think the whole Committee will agree that nowadays there are a great number of these societies of all kinds, shapes and sizes set up for one purpose or another. They are not all having house-to-house collections, and the Act only deals with house-to-house collections, but a number of them are having house-to-house collections, and it is extremely desirable that there should be control over these collections in order that philanthropically-disposed persons should know that the gifts they make go to a proper and deserving quarter. It is for that purpose that the Amendment has been put down.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has been good enough to hand to us a copy of Draft Provisional Regulations, dated 9th December, 1939, and we are glad to know that the Home Office have found it possible to draw up these regulations and to bring them promptly into force. That is a still greater reason for bringing the Act out of the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and insisting that it should come into force on 1st January. I am surprised at the complexity of the regulations, and no doubt that complexity may be some excuse for the action of the hon. Member's Department. I do not know whether the regulations are precisely what the Committee required or recommended, but in substance I have no doubt that they will fit the bill. The Under-Secretary gave us to understand that the Home Office will lay an Order-in-Council before His Majesty, to operate on 1st April. Would it not be possible to make that Order-in-Council operate at an earlier date, having regard to the fact that the regulations have now been drawn up, and that the delay should be for not more than a month? It ought to be possible to bring the Act into force on 1st February. If so, some of my hon. Friends might take a different view, but, in the meantime, until we know what the Under-Secretary has to say, I submit the Amendment.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to support the Amendment, and I should like to indicate some of our fears and the reason for pressing what the Under-Secretary may think is a small point, namely, the difference between 1st January and 1st April for the coming into operation of the Act. I am reminded of the old dictum of Dr. Johnson, that patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels. There are already indications since the war started that a type of scoundrel who commits the meanest of crimes, that of preying upon the public, is active, and such activities are being extended. In discussing this question we have to bear in mind the mood of the public at the present time, and how easily they fall a prey to anybody who makes a call upon their patriotism. I have here particulars of various societies. There is one called "The Cigarettes for the Tommies Fund." It was started a month ago.


This is a purely personal venture on the part of two young men in their early twenties. They have not a committee of any kind. They formerly ran a stamp-collecting business, which failed as a result of the war. They employ collectors at £1 a week and pay 331/3, per cent. commission. A collection for an institution called "The Cigarettes for the Tommies Fund" is one that ought to be put down immediately, and without any waiting.
Take another class of swindle. If there is one class of people in the community to whom everybody would like to pay their tribute, it is the men who go to sea. Consequently, bogus organisations which are founded upon appeals on behalf of the men who go to sea are able to collect large sums of money from the public. The joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, of which my hon. and gallant Friend and I were members, had a great deal of evidence from chief constables, representatives of municipal corporations, and representatives of the Charity Organisation Society, and we were unanimous in our report, after hearing the evidence, and framed our Bill. There was not a voice raised against the Bill in this House or the other place, and now we submit that, so far from the war being made an excuse for delaying the operation of the Act, it should be a reason for putting it into force even before the original date.
I Should like to give some of the cases that were brought before the Joint Select Committee, which were scandals, and I only wish that all the newspapers had published the particulars. I will give four cases out of 200 connected with organisations which are operating. The first one is the Incorporated Seamen's and Boatmen's Mission. The professed object is to help seamen. Is there anything that would appeal more to the public than an organisation of that sort? It has a committee and accounts are published. Remuneration is paid to the collectors in the form of salaries and commission. The amount received by this organisation, as reported to this Joint Select. Committee, was £7,924, and the amount they expended on the seamen was £500.
The next case is that of an organisation called the "East London Seamen's Mission," another body with the professed object of helping the seamen. It has no committee and no accounts are

published. The commission paid to collectors is 50 per cent., and there is no evidence of any amount having been received by the seamen. Another organisation is the "Royal Sailors Incorporated, London and Liverpool Docks." This is also for the assistance of seamen. It has no committee and no accounts are published. All the collections go to the collectors. The final view of the committee was that the society did not exist, but was just run by a private individual. I would draw attention to the kind of titles that are allowed to be used with impunity just now by these organisations. For instance, there is "The National Sailors' Society." People are likely to think that an organisation with the title of "The National Sailors' Society" is genuine.
My constituents are not more generously disposed than any others, but I am certain that anyone who went round my constituency to collect on behalf of the National Sailors' Society would get money even in the poorest districts, at almost every house, because of the feeling that the public have towards the sailors, particularly when the appeal is linked up, as some are, with the seamen. We have great admiration for all the men who go to sea, and especially at the present time for the fishermen who are doing the minesweeping. In every humble home there is admiration for these men. When collectors go round the people have not the means of cross-examining them—saying: "By what right do you call your organisation the National Sailors Society?" They think the object is to help the seamen. That society collected in 1936, £3,042, but it was impossible to discover from the complicated form of the accounts whether any money went to help any sailors or any seamen.
These are examples that I have taken from over 200 and they are what one might call national organisations working on a considerable scale. Included in the 200 are a multitude of small organisations without any books, without any registration, without any real organisation at all. The last time I spoke on this subject I gave an example of how a tragedy like that of an aeroplane hitting a house in North London one Sunday, killing a number of people, was made the subject of bogus collections on behalf of the stricken people, who never got any of the money.
I could quote many more cases which were submitted to the Joint Select Committee. There was one extreme case of an organisation formed for the purpose of supplying Christmas toys to the children of the unemployed. That organisation raised over £1,000 for Christmas toys and spent in buying Christmas toys exactly 8s. It is a dreadful scandal. The reason I mention this case is because the police in that case reported that they were unable to take any action in the present state of the law because something had gone to buy toys for the children of the unemployed. That was the difficulty the police were in, and why they ask for these additional powers so that they can come down upon these swindles. Whether it is a small swindle for a few shillings or a few pounds, or a big swindle for thousands of pounds, I think that this Committee in this dangerous period should make a special effort to see that the powers contained in the Act are put into operation, because they will put a stop to 90 per cent. of the swindling which is going on at the present time.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I should like to support the Amendment. It is quite clear that a postponement of the operation of the House-to-House Charities Collection Act will enable bogus or questionable charities to reap a rich harvest. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has given examples of some questionable charities which were in full bloom before the war, I shall mention several to which the war has actually given birth, or which, alternatively, have changed their objects and taken on a new lease of life owing to the war. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) mentioned the other day the Cigarettes for the Tommies Fund and the War Relief Fund and Royal Charities Appeal. I should like to name two or three others.
There is the National Distress Relief Association, a private venture run by two ladies—I see no reason why I should not mention their names—Mrs. Harrison-Wright and Mrs. Thomson. These ladies employ house-to-house collectors who receive one-third of the amount collected as commission. Out of the balance both ladies draw salaries. In the printed statement of accounts there is only one item

on the receipts side, namely, "Net collections and receipts, £1,096." There is no mention of the commission and expenses paid to the collectors; they are not accounted for. Before the war the relief work was the giving of free meals and the running of a holiday home during the summer. At the outbreak of the war they immediately changed their tactics and their collectors are now appealing for blankets and clothing for evacuated children. It seems to me that on the evidence of their own accounts the National Distress Relief Association lacks every essential of a bona fide charity, and under the present proposal we are going to give it an extra three months of life.
I also have here particulars of the Youth Peace Assembly and Refugee Council. It is an organisation started by two young men. It has no patron or president, a committee with few responsible names upon it, and it publishes no audited accounts. These men claim that their intention is to assist refugees. Such work is already done by really well-founded organisations.

Mr. David Grenfell: Have you the names?

Mr. Keeling: I have no names in this instance. Then there is the Good Health League, which is purely a one-man concern. It has no committee, no constitution of any kind, and the scheme is to raise money for the medical care of evacuated children. There is also the Ex-Service Men's Publicity Scheme, which is also a one-man venture, run by Major Ripon Seymour, who has already been convicted on a charge of falsely representing that he has won the D.S.O. and has also been convicted under the Business Names Act. He has been extremely active in the City recently and has raised considerable sums for what he describes as an employment scheme for ex-servicemen. Here, again, there is no committee, and no accounts published, and I hear that he is working on a widespread basis.
The Lion Hospital Aid Society is a very good example of how these societies are adapting themselves to the war. It is a small concern run by a man named Silver. He has recently launched an appeal throughout the country, and prints on his notepaper that he is working in co-operation with the Women's Voluntary Services. That statement is


quite unauthorised, and he has been requested by the Women's Voluntary Services to remove their name. He also has the audacity to print on his notepaper that he is registered with the Charity Commissioners. That statement, too, is untrue.
Finally, I quote the case of the Group Hospitals Waste Collection Scheme. It is Ore of many concerns which are run under the guise of charity and which would normally have gone out of existence on 1st January next. It is a purely business venture on the part of a Mr. Huxtable, who collects clothes and waste material in the name of hospitals and keeps within the law by giving an occasional donation to a hospital. The British Hospitals Association have already warned hospitals not to accept these occasional donations. Four days ago Mr. Huxtable was evidently ignorant of this communication, for he approached Queen Charlotte's Hospital and suggested that they should allow their name to be used in connection with his waste collection scheme. He told the secretary of the hospital that he was collecting £80 a week, and he also made the statement that the House-to-House Charities Collection Act would not become law for an indefinite period and that he expected to reap a rich harvest in consequence. I hope that his hopes will be disappointed.

5.8 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The Committee will note that the last three hon. Members who have spoken were members of the committee which considered this question. They heard evidence from all over the country; consequently this is a widespread evil, not a local one. It is one which in its magnitude it is difficult for the ordinary hon. Member to realise. I had not the honour of being a member of that committee, but I appeared before it on behalf of the County Councils' Association which has to do with the administration of the Act. I realise the great necessity there is for this Act, which was passed without any opposition in this House. The only question we have to consider is when the Act shall come into operation. The whole of the evidence given to the committee was of cases which were pre-war, but to-day the conditions are aggravated owing to the war, and I am afraid are very much worse now than they were then. There is a greater opportunity for the misuse of so-called charity.

There is no word which has been so much abused as the word "charity." It really means love. The charity of the British public is being abused; the love which people have shown by the money they give to charitable purposes is being diverted from just objects to others which do not really merit their charity at all if they know the facts.
Let me cite one case only. I came out of the terminus of a great railway the other day and stood waiting for a bus. Two young men were there dressed as though they were out of work and ex-servicemen. They had cards and were going about among the people, and I myself saw considerable sums of money handed to them. They came to me. The man was perfectly civil and showed me a card which said that he was an ex-serviceman unemployed, and that the man who presented the card would do so in a respectful manner and would not be abusive if no gift was received. There was no name on the card and no name of any society. I asked him whom he represented. He looked at me: it was not my appearance, it was what I had said that caused him to vanish. I have little doubt that these men were acting in a nefarious manner and were obtaining something out of the sympathy of the public to which they were not entitled. The position to-day is that regulations have been issued, and consequently I do not think there is anything to prevent the Home Office agreeing to the Amendment. The question is whether the administration is in a position to administer the regulations, and that is a question which, I think, we should leave to the administration itself. Let us bring this Act in at the earliest possible moment, that is, 1st January, and I guarantee that nearly all local authorities will bring it into operation immediately, or will do so at the earliest moment possible.

5.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Peake): I do not at all regret that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) should have put down this Amendment, because it has given hon. Members in all parts of the House an opportunity of drawing attention to some of the less desirable charitable objects which are appealing for funds at the present time. Anyone listening to the discussion might


imagine that the Home Office was in favour of the continuance of these nefarious appeals, whereas, in point of fact, the real issue before the Committee is whether the Act shall be brought into operation on 1st January next, or delayed for a short period. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 23rd November that the coming into operation of the Act would be delayed for administrative reasons until 1st April. I can well understand the feelings of backbench Members, rightly jealous of their legislative rights, when the Government come forward and announce that a valuable piece of private Members' legislation is to be deferred from coming into operation until a date which is not even, for drafting reasons, fixed in the Bill which proposes to postpone it. At the same time, I can assure hon. Members that the Home Office think that this House to House Collections Act is a valuable Measure, and that we are anxious to bring it into operation at the earliest possible moment which is compatible with good administration.
It was always recognised by the promoters of the Bill and those who took part in the discussions on the Committee stage, that a considerable time would have to elapse between passing the Bill into law and putting it into operation. The Bill passed through its Committee stage in the House towards the end of last March, and the date then fixed for its coming into operation was 1st January, 1940. For reasons into which I need not go, it was not until 28th July that the Bill took its place on the Statute Book, and it might well have been wise for the Government, when the Bill was being discussed in another place, to have brought forward an Amendment bringing the Act into operation at a date later than 1st January next, because by the time the calendar had got round to 28th July the time available for the arrangements necessary before the Bill could become operative was getting exceedingly short. To have brought the Act into operation before the necessary steps, such as the drafting of the regulations, the consideration of applications by police authorities and the granting of licences, and so forth, had been concluded, would have caused very serious inconvenience to existing bona fide charities, because there would have been a period during which it would have been

illegal for anyone, however respectable, to conduct a house-to-house collection. During the progress of making our administrative arrangements, we have received great assistance from these charitable bodies, and in my opinion, it would not be treating them fairly to bring the Act into operation before they had had time to complete the necessary formalities.
Let me briefly explain to the Committee what are the various stages which are a prerequisite of this House to House Collections Act coming into operation. First, the regulations, which, as anybody who obtained a copy of them from the Vote Office this afternoon will have seen, are somewhat complicated, had to be drafted. After the first draft had been made, they had to be submitted, in accordance with an undertaking given during the passage of the Bill, to representatives of the charitable organisations, and after their discussion with those bodies, the regulations had to be amended to bring them into line with the views expressed. The next stage would ordinarily have been the publication in the London Gazette, under Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, of the intention of the Home Secretary to make these regulations, and in the ordinary course of events not until 40 days had elapsed after the notice of intention to make the regulations had appeared in the London Gazette, could the Home Secretary have made the regulations in their final form. After the regulations had been completed, there would then follow the applications by charitable bodies to the police authorities on the one hand or the Secretary of State on the other. Those applications would have to be examined by the police authorities and the police authorities would have to decide, through their sub-committees established under the Act, whether to grant licences or to withhold them. After the issue of the licences, the charitable bodies would then have to obtain the necessary badges, certificates, and so forth, before they could proceed with their house-to-house collections.
Therefore, the Committee will see that there really was a great deal of work to be done before the Act could be brought in force, unless we were going to cause great inconvenience to existing bona fide charities and charities which had helped us very materially in the drafting of the


regulations. What in fact took place was this. We had hoped to have ready at the end of August the first draft of the regulations. In point of fact, owing to the outbreak of war, it was not ready until 14th October. For about six weeks from the middle of August, when the crisis developed, everybody in the Home Office, and I imagine everybody in almost every other Government Department, was concentrating his mind entirely upon the consequences of the outbreak of war. Therefore, it was not until 14th October that we produced the first draft of these regulations. There were discussions during November with the charitable organisations. Those discussions resulted in the amendment of our draft and the improvement of the regulations, and I have been able to lay the draft regulations in respect of England on the Table of the House this afternoon. The Scottish regulations will be ready in a very few days. I have been able to take that course only by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary making use of the special provisions of Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which says that:
Where a rule-making authority certifies that, on account of urgency or any special reason, any rule should come into immediate operation, it shall be lawful for such authority to make any such rules to come into operation forthwith as porvisional rules, but such provisional rules shall only continue in force until rules have been made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of the Act.
If hon. Members will look at the regulations which are now available in the Vote Office, they will see that those regulations are headed "Draft and Provisional Regulations, 1939," and that at the end of the regulations there is a certificate by the Home Secretary to the effect that they are made under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, on account of urgency. In that way, we have been able to save a considerable amount of time in bringing the Act into operation, and that will enable us to make some concession on the date which we originally proposed. We have examined very carefully the possibilities of an earlier date. We recognise the desirability, which is even greater, as hon. Members have pointed out, since the outbreak of war, of bringing this Act into operation at the earliest possible time. But we are, in fact, laying these regulations something like 10 or 11 weeks later than we had hoped to do in the ordinary way By adopting this urgency pro-

cedure under the Rules Publication Act, we shall recover somewhere between five and six weeks, and therefore, it will be possible to advance somewhat the date of 1st April which we originally proposed.
I recognise that 1st April is not altogether a happy day to suggest for bringing into operation a valuable piece of Private Members' legislation. Certainly, it is not a date which any of us would voluntarily select as being appropriate for a Measure upon which we spent a good deal of time, thought, and trouble; but I can assure hon. Members that the date of 1st April was not chosen as an insult to the promoters of the Bill and was not intended to express any hidden view on the part of Government Departments, which they may be thought to take, of Private Member's legislation as such. At the same time, all the applications still remain to be made. Those applications still have to be considered by the police authorities, licences have to be issued, and after they are issued, the badges, certificates, and so forth, have to be prepared. We want to give all bona fide charities an equal chance at the start. We do not want some to get the advantage of having had their applications considered at the top of the list and others to be deferred and have to postpone their house-to-house collections until a later date. There is, in fact, a good deal of competition between these various bona fide bodies engaged in house-to-house collections. We are definitely of the opinion that the earliest date at which we can bring the Act into operation and give everybody a fair and flying start is 1st March next. If the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is satisfied with the explanation I have given, and if I assure him that we are doing all we can, and have done all we could, to accelerate the coming into force of the Act, I hope that, with that assurance, he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have listened very attentively to the hon. Gentleman trying to justify the inaction of the Home Office in connection with this Act of Parliament, but frankly, I think his speech was full of lame excuses. What really happened is that the Home Office had completely forgotten that this Act was passed at all. To come to the House to-day and tell hon. Members that it was impossible to put the Act into operation on 1st January


next is not good enough. Yet the Minister of Labour, in the twinkling of an eye almost, has called 1,250,000 men to the Forces and the hon. Gentleman's own chief at the Home Office has in a very short time enrolled about 1,000,000 men for Civil Defence. The hon. Gentleman cannot therefore argue that this small Act of Parliament could not be brought into operation without all the vast and complicated arrangements which he detailed. To hear him speak one would imagine that he was engaged in the building of an Empire. It seemed to me that he was using a steam hammer to crack a nut.
Nevertheless, as the Home Office seems to have forgotten completely that this Act was passed I do not see what we can do now but accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that it will be put into operation on 1st March. The hon. Gentleman denied that there was any insult intended to the promoters of the Act by the proposal to put it into operation on 1st April, but that would have been typical of this Government itself. As far as the Government are concerned it would have been quite appropriate if they had brought the Measure into operation on All Fools Day. But I realise the difficulty which now exists of doing anything other than what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. As has been pointed out by hon. Members who served on the Select Committee, these bogus charities will do very well in the meantime. Up till March next they will be able to rake in their ill-gotten gains. Apart from any controversy, however, I hope that the Home Office will not be satisfied with merely asking the police authorities to do their duty under this Act when schemes have been lodged. I hope that the Home Secretary will call for periodical reports from the police authorities to see how the Act is working. Unless the Home Office call for such reports from all over the country annually or, at any rate, triennially or quinquennially, I am not sure that the provisions of the Act will be as effective as Parliament wants them to be. I notice that under Regulation 4 just issued no person in the Metropolitan Police district or the City of London under the age of 18, or elsewhere under the age of 16, can act as a collector. I do not know where on earth the Home Office got hold of that idea.

The Chairman: We must not extend this Debate to the provisions of the Act.

Mr. Davies: I was only using that as an illustration. Whatever regulations apply to London, should apply equally to the provinces. I hope also that when the accounts of organisations are submitted it will not be considered sufficient to accept them as having been audited by a chartered accountant or incorporated accountant. Where accounts are presented to the police which have not been audited by members of those professional associations I trust the police will themselves secure the services of export auditors.

The Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to discuss the merits of the administration of this Act in the future. We are dealing now with legislation which has been passed, and the only question is the date on which it is to come into force.

Mr. Davies: I was about to conclude by saying that after the promise made by the Under-Secretary it seems to me we have now reached a stage at which, owing to the stupidity of this Government, we can do nothing else but agree to the suggested date, 1st March, 1940, and withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that when the Act is in operation, we shall question the Home Office as to how its administration is proceeding.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I had not the honour of serving on the Committee which dealt with the subject-matter of this Act, nor had I the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment, but the Under-Secretary will not think me guilty of any personal disrespect to him, if I say that I am profoundly dissatisfied with his reply. I sincerely trust that those who have introduced and supported this Amendment will not consent to take the friendly course suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies). The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said that he was not a lawyer. Well I am a lawyer, and part of my duty is to administer criminal justice in one of the largest cities in this country. I ask myself. "Is the postponement of this essential Measure, even for 24 hours, going to assist, not the Home


Office but the police in that city where there is much of the sort of thing against which the Act is directed?" With the greatest respect, I differ from what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties of bringing the Act into operation at once.
Obviously, if two or three people are gathered together for the purpose of collecting subscriptions by false pretences they do not, by the mere fact that one penny out of every pound is given to charity, exempt themselves from the law of conspiracy. All that we are proposing to do here in this Act is to make an extension of the law in order to rectify a loophole. Is that to be done merely by elaborate and unnecessary regulations by the Home Office? What on earth is the necessity for all this Home Office interference in a perfectly simple matter? What is wrong with going to the local police in each district and asking them whether they have had any trouble of this kind? If the answer is, "Yes, we have a society going round and obtaining money practically under false pretences" then surely when the chief constable of a big city is prepared to inform the Home Office to that effect, it is not necessary for administrative reasons to hold up the whole thing for a period of six months. All you need to do is to say, "Here are the powers for which you ask; we give them to you immediately." Is it to be a matter of special reference to the Home Office every time a flag day is held in one of the industrial towns in the North? Is it not a matter in which the police can exercise their discretion, or, failing that, a matter which can be dealt with by the borough council?
I grant that the Home Office, in difficult circumstances, have brought forward these regulations as quickly as they could, but surely the thing that matters to the public is the power to allow these collections. Let us brush on one side all these formalities and give these powers to the people who need them, namely, the police. I regret the postponement of this very necessary measure. If the hon. Member's Amendment is not accepted, it simply means that the public can be robbed for a few months longer and I make a strong personal appeal to the Under-Secretary, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I well remember when this Measure became law in July and my

comment to myself then was that I had not seen any legislation passed for a long time which was more acceptable. I had personal experience of the bare-faced swindles which were being carried on under the disguise of collections, and, moreover, I knew that the people who were being swindled were those who were disposed to give money to charitable objects. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) gave a number of cases, and I was glad they did so, because the Under-Secretary was not in his present office when the Act was passed, and I doubt whether he was aware of all that was included under the harmless title of "house-to-house collections" and what this Act sought to prevent. I had experience myself of the case of a former night club waiter who was making an income of at least £4,000 a year out of his particular organisation.
I was dissatisfied at the time with the proposal that the Measure should not come into operation until 1st January next. Even after it was passed, I remember noticing one or two of these bogus charities continuing their activities and taking advantage of the impunity which they were being allowed until 1st January. It is difficult to understand why a period of five months should be necessary to bring the Act into operation, and it is still more difficult to understand why this further extension of the period should be necessary. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke of the necessity for having regulations drafted and giving ample time so that bona fide charities should not be debarred from making legitimate collections. As far as my experience goes, I venture to say that the majority of genuine charities rely only to a minor extent on house-to-house collections, and if the Under-Secretary asked some of those charities with whom the Home Office has been in consultation whether they would prefer the postponement of this Act to give time for them to obtain the necessary licences, or to have the Act brought into operation three months sooner, even if their own activities were somewhat cramped, so that the activities of the swindlers should be terminated, I have little doubt of the reply. They would rather have the Act brought into operation at once, even if it meant


that they themselves were debarred from making collections.

Mr. Peake: This postponement was discussed with representative charities towards the end of November and not one of them made any protest at the delay of three months, while one of the most important charities in the country asked for a postponement of six months.

Mr. Keeling: Was the postponement discussed with the Charity Organisation Society, and if so, what was their reply?

Mr. Peake: I think it is recognised that the peculiar interest of the Charity Organisation Society is in the prevention of mala fide charities, but we have also to consider the consequences to the bona fide charities.

Mr. Radford: I repeat that I think it would have been better if the Act had been brought into operation on 1st January rather than 1st March. As it is, this means that during January and February these swindling activities will enjoy a further immunity which is unjustified even if some bona fide charities, who rely to a certain extent on house-to-house collections are prevented from carrying out that part of their activities during those two months.

5.44 P.m.

Mr. Muff: I should not have intervened in this Debate if I did not feel called upon to thank the Under-Secretary for his all too kindly references to the back benchers and the certificates of character which he gave them. Now that the hon. Gentleman has risen to Olympian heights we back benchers appreciate all the more the testimonial which he has given us, and we accept in the proper spirit his references to All Fools Day. I would remind hon. Members, however, that many Acts of Parliament, even those passed under the auspices of the Home Office, come into operation on 1st April. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman sends Christmas cards to his constituents, but I would remind him that in his constituency there will be great rejoicing when his speech is reported in the "Yorkshire Post" to-morrow morning, because he has given a respite to very bogus organisations which have their home in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman need not go to any expense to wish those people a merry Christmas, because he will

be giving them a very merry Christmas and a very prosperous two or three months, at any rate, of the new year.
The hon. Gentleman has made a long speech which I have tried to analyse, and I could not be sufficiently grateful, as a back bencher, for his praise of our diligence and so on, but the many excuses which he piled up, as generous and as lengthy as his praises, were equally thin. I close, having made this gentle and equally benevolent protest, by stating that we folk who have been pestered by the house-to-house bogus people and also by the lack of regulation of even the genuine collectors, who have come far too often to our doors, at any rate hope that the citizens of Leeds will have taken due note of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am certain that the bogus societies also dwelling in the West Riding will have taken equal note of the generous respite and reprieve that he has given to them in order that they may prey upon the public for an additional five months.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the whole Committee will have recognised the conciliatory spirit that the Under-Secretary of State has endeavoured to bring to bear upon the problem which is before us, but I feel that he himself must recognise the disappointment that is felt on all sides of the Committee in that he has not been able to go further to meet the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). He has explained that six weeks were lost at the beginning of the war, and we can quite understand the reasons for that, but the time that he has suggested for the operation of the Act would involve, not six weeks, but two months postponement, and surely, if he will follow the reasoning which he himself has put before the Committee and bear in mind the great urgency of the problem which he himself admits, and which has been emphasised on all sides, and the very great importance of stopping these bogus collections, he could meet the manifest desire on all sides of the Committee for the earliest application of this Act by making the date 14th February, which would be exactly six weeks and would also have the happy coincidence of falling upon St. Valentine's Day, which I am sure he would agree, would be a very much more appropriate date than 1st


April for the coming into force of this Measure.

5.49 p.m.

Major Milner: I am bound to say that I, with, I think, everyone who has spoken in this Debate, was extremely dissatisfied with the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State. There is a French motto which says that he who excuses himself accuses himself. I do not refer to the hon. Gentleman himself, but I feel in this matter that the Home Office have been somewhat remiss. I understand that, to all intents and purposes, it is not possible to bring this Act into force by 1st January, and that is the difficulty with which we are faced. Therefore, it would not seem unreasonable to postpone the Act, if that be the case, until some later date, when it could be reasonably and properly complied with. It brings the law into disrepute if an Act is made to come into operation on a particular date and it is not possible by then for those who are affected by it in fact to comply with its terms. At the same time, I hope the hon. Gentleman and the Home Office, and the Government, will recognise the very strong feeling that has been shown by all the speakers in this Debate that, in their view, this Act deals with an evil which at the present time is undoubtedly growing, and is likely to grow weak by week until the Act is brought into force. It is much against my own will, but, having regard to the fact that it is not possible to do otherwise in the present circumstances, I shall in a moment or two ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I hope, however, as was said by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey), that it may be possible even now for the hon. Gentleman's Department to bring the Act into operation at an earlier date.
I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) in particular that the facts were not quite as he stated them. While there is an Act dealing with street collections, house-to-house collections are under a rather different category, and we were faced with certain difficulties which I am sure, on consideration, he will appreciate; hence the necessity of the Act of Parliament. I understand, however, that the Home Office will bring the Act into operation at the latest by 1st March. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) was in

error or probably overlooked something I had said on a previous occasion, when he mentioned, among other societies, the Incorporated Seamen's and Boatmen's Mission. I took the trouble to inquire on a previous occasion into that society, which has a branch in my own constituency in Leeds, and I found it to be perfectly reputable in every way. I do not remember the exact figures, but not a great proportion of the proceeds of its collections goes to gifts and so forth to seamen; yet I do not think that that is unusual in the case of such missions. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, who is on the Treasury Bench, will, I think, agree that in the case of churches and so forth a very small proportion of their income goes to things of that sort, and that the greater proportion of their income goes to the upkeep of the mission or church and the payment of the stipend of the missioner. Having said that, and relying on the Home Office bringing this Act into operation at the earliest possible moment, even before 1st March if that be possible, and in order that we may have a fair start for the bonâ fide charities at the earliest possible moment, I beg to ask leave, much against my own will, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACTS.

5.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move,
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1939, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 5th December, be approved.
It will, perhaps, be agreed that the introduction of a new set of unemployment assistance regulations does not provide the best opportunity for a maiden Ministerial speech, nor is my task made any easier by the fact that both my predecessors in office were endowed with gifts of eloquence to which I can lay no claim. Both of them graduated in the best schools of oratory, for one of them


was President of the Union at Oxford and the other at Cambridge. In addition to that, the House will, I am sure, readily appreciate that if one has an oratorical inferiority complex, it is not altogether removed by the very close association which I am privileged to enjoy with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But I will try to make up for my lack of eloquence by giving the closest possible attention to the work of what, I am sure, the House recognises as one of the most important of all Government Departments, since it affects the daily lives of so many millions of our fellow citizens.
I am sorry not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) in his place this evening, for it was to him that I first owed my real interest in the problem of unemployment. Nearly 25 years ago, when I was still at school, the right hon. Gentleman came down and gave an address on the subject of unemployment, and I well remember how deeply I was stirred by all that he told us. He recommended among other things that we should read the book called "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist," and it was from that book that I first gained an insight into the misery and anxiety which unemployment causes in the homes of those whom it afflicts. My own constituency, fortunately, has been comparatively free in recent years from serious unemployment, but the county in which I live—Lancashire—has given me every opportunity to see at close quarters, not only the tragic consequences of unemployment, but also the very gallant way in which its people have met their adversities in the years since the war; and no one who has lived among those people could fail to have the highest respect and admiration for their qualities. Last winter I spent on a Royal Commission which was investigating conditions in the West Indies. I had amongst my colleagues on that journey one who was much loved in this House—Morgan Jones—and it would be impossible for anyone to have spent many months on a journey with him without having gained something in sympathy and understanding of the problems of the unemployesd, and to have begun to realise the advantages that have been gained here by the ordered progress of our social services.
The Draft Regulations which are before us this evening concern the determination of need and the assessment of needs. Unemployment allowances paid by the Board are based on a scale of rates laid down in the current Regulations. These Regulations, as the House will remember, were passed and approved by Parliament in the summer of 1936, and they came into force in the autumn of that year. Since then the rates have remained unaltered, though the House will recollect that regulations were passed last year permitting special increases in order to meet the needs of winter-time.
Some of the financial implications of the war were made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a recent speech. He pointed out that while the country was devoting its efforts to producing a large quantity of goods which could be used for only destructive purposes, there must inevitably be a serious reduction in the amount of goods and services available for ordinary consumption. It follows, therefore, that the general body of the community must regulate its desires for material satisfaction in time of war. For reasons which were cogently explained by the Chancellor, it is not possible for the general standard of such satisfaction to be maintained in time of war at the same level as in time of peace. If a general attempt to do so is made by increasing the amount of money which is at the disposal of individuals, whether in the form of wages, or salaries or otherwise, the result will merely be to force up prices and reduce the value of that money without adding in any way to the quantity of goods which are available for consumption. By such a process the consumer gains nothing and the poorest least of all. Our capacity to conduct the war to a successful conclusion is hampered by the aggravated increase of prices which must surely be the result. No one who is a realist, I think, can fail to recognise the truth of this.
The Chancellor, however, was very careful to point out a distinction which it is the whole purpose of my speech to underline, and the distinction is this. There are certain sections of the community who are obviously unable to share in the same way in these sacrifices, and those are the people whose incomes are only just sufficient for the essential needs of life. We can, however, take comfort from the fact


that our rapidly increasing war effort will before long bring into employment many of those who have been out of work for a long time and will lessen the number of those who have to depend upon unemployment assistance allowances. These allowances, which are provided under the Regulations of the Board, are designed to meet the most immediate needs of the applicants, and if, owing to a change of circumstances, such, for instance, as a rise in the cost of living, the old scale is no longer appropriate, it is the business of the Board to propose a suitable alteration. In the light of that duty, imposed upon them by Statute, the Board have been giving careful consideration during the past few weeks to the whole situation, including, of course, the cost of living. It would not be practicable to change the Regulations every time the cast of living figure rose or fell. Nevertheless, it is plain that when there is a substantial rise in the cost of living it becomes necessary to consider the position. The Board have now reached the conclusion, after taking various considerations into account, that some change is desirable, and draft Regulations have been submitted to the Minister proposing the changes which are regarded as appropriate.
The changes which are proposed may be summarised thus. The present rates will he increased by 2s. a week in the case of a man and wife, is in the case of a member of the household who is 16 years old and over, and 6d. in the case of a child under 16. The rate for a person living alone, such as, for instance, a lodger or boarder, will be increased by is. 6d. a week. The greatest care has been taken in drafting these Regulations to ensure that the increase shall be a real one. I will explain why it is necessary to provide, in two particular cases, special safeguards. First, the existing Regulations provide that where a householder with a single dependant has no available resources his allowance shall be raised to the rate of unemployment benefit current in the summer of 1936. Under the proposed Regulations the normal allowance for a man and wife will be 26s., but as this is equal to the appropriate benefit rate no addition would fall to be made unless some special provision was made to deal with this point. The provisions of paragraph 2 avoid this result and provide that the same increase as before

shall be given under the proviso and the allowance in the case mentioned will, therefore, be 28s. a week instead of 26s.
Second, under the Regulations one-quarter of the scale rates are deemed to be in respect of rent, and if the amount paid in rent exceeds this proportion the allowance is increased accordingly. With a higher assessment it would work out that the amount attributed to rent would be increased and the extra allowance hitherto made for rent would, therefore, partly disappear. The benefit of the new rates would in such a case, therefore, not be wholly operative. To avoid this happening and to make certain that the increase will really be received care has been taken to ensure that the rules for adjustment of the allowance on account of rent are operated on the old lower scale allowance and not on the proposed higher one.
I might mention here another point with regard to rent which is of real importance. In so far as we are seeking to make provision for an increase in the cost of living, the item of rent can generally be left out of account because under recent legislation increases of rent have been restricted. Since rent remains stable, it follows that the improvements now proposed in the scale rates should be considered in relation not to the full amount of the allowances, but in relation to the three-quarters of them which are attributed to items other than rent. It will be seen, for example, that the 2s. increase to be given to a man and wife is in effect a rise of 2s. on 18s. and not a rise of 2s. on 24s. which is the scale rate. I cannot help feeling that this aspect of the matter though perhaps at first sight somewhat technical, is of real importance. As the House is aware, the Statute provides that the important question of unemployment assistance rates shall be settled only after full opportunity has been given for discussion in Parliament. The draft Regulations containing these proposals are now before us, and I hope that the House will give its approval this afternoon so that it may he possible in the majority of cases to make payments at the new rates before Christmas, which I hope will be in some homes a happier one in consequence.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: It is my pleasure to express the appreciation of the House


at the way in which the hon. Gentleman has made his first speech as a Minister. It is not his maiden speech, but it is his first speech from that Box. I feel sure that we are entitled to expect from him the very efficient service which his office would require from him and which the House is entitled to have from a Minister representing a Department here. The hon. Gentleman had an easy task. The Regulations are simple, and, fortunately, the hon. Gentleman was moving a small concession to the unemployed people. If he had come with a less favourable proposal, he would perhaps not have so fortunate an experience as he will have to-night. I hope that he will not fall from grace in his selection of associates. He said that he had gone to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) for first instruction and guidance on this distressing subject of unemployment. Then he said he enjoyed and profited from his association with Morgan Jones, who is no longer with us in this House, and who, also, had close and sympathetic contacts with unemployed people in recent years. He did not suffer from his association with these two men, and I advise him to sit a little further away from the Minister of Labour, and not to be influenced entirely by the whispering words that may come from him from time to time.
The Parliamentary Secretary represents the division of Rushcliffe. We knew Lord Rushcliffe in this House, and we have seen the steady decline of his appreciation of the miseries of the unemployed and the way in which he schooled himself to study technically the various regulations made by this House. Then he removed from this House to a higher sphere in the political world and to a position of economic certitude which is denied to the majority of us. Lord Rushcliffe is partly responsible for the appearance of these schedules, and I am not surprised to find that they again continue the miserable rates imposed by this House years ago. They were begun by the Economy Act, 1931, and have been continued and modified from time to time, but they have never contained, nor do these Regulations to-night, the means of decent sustenance and livelihood for the unemployed. The complaint I have is not against the hon. Member opposite, not perhaps against the

Minister on this occasion. The complaint is against the Government as a whole, and in particular against those responsible for the main direction of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and also the Treasury, who are responsible for the sins of all of us and are so niggardly in their provision for the proper maintenance of these people. The hon. Gentleman said that this concession amounted to
£2,500,000 and covered, I understand, 400,000 applicants, but that number does not represent all who are to share in the provision which is being made. I do not know what the exact figure is.

Mr. E. Brown: It is a total of just over 1,000,000 people.

Mr. Grenfell: Assuming that it is 1,000,000 or 1,250,000, this £2,5oo,000 a year represents only about £2 a year for each of them. That is an advance of roughly 40s. a year, less than is a week. It is true that the recipients are divided into categories, and that there is 2s. increase for married couples, is, increase for every person over 16 years of age and 6d. for those under 16, with is. 6d. a week for lodgers, who are now to receive 16s. 6d. instead of 15s.
Those are the main provisions of these new Regulations, and in view of the extent of unemployment and the suffering and misery which it entails, I do not think anyone in any part of the House would dare to stand up and say that generous provision is being made for the unemployed. The payments were never adequate and these small additions are no measure of generosity, only something offered in expiation of past failure to relieve the sufferings of the unemployed. The basic rates were never meant to be an adequate allowance. I remember well the discussions we had and the case we made from this side of the House eight years ago. At intervals since we have repeated the protests we then made. We have brought to the ears of the House the cries of the poor, but the tales of woe and suffering have never moved the Minister and never moved the mass of Members of this House, and it is not good enough to come forward now and say, "We are giving these additional payments as an act of generosity, as an act of seasonal good will, because Christmas time and the New Year are coming." They are increases which have been long overdue, and they are not a


sufficient addition to the basic payments, which were decided some time ago and make no provision at all for the increase in the cost of living.
Hon. Members can analyse the figures as they like. They may analyse them in the subtle way of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said the additional payment was not meant to be computed as a percentage upon the whole of the allowance at present paid, because there were fixed charges, like rent, which never varied, and, therefore, the 2s. was a percentage payment on something less than the 24s. —on 18s. or 17s. Really, there is no provision here for improving the standard of living of the unemployed. They will not be a bit better off in 1940 than they were in 1937 or in 1936. It is a miserable standard of life which the allowance provides. Take, for example, the items specially mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that is, food and other household expenses apart from rent, and compare the diet which can be provided on that money with the dietetic standards laid down by the British Medical Association and Sir John Orr.
Even with the increase there will still be a big deficiency. No household dependent upon these allowances, particularly where there are a number of young children, will be able to provide the standard of diet advocated by the British Medical Association or Sir John Orr, and so, in spite of the ostensible increase in payments, we are only perpetuating a misery standard, a standard below the poverty line. In those households which have no income part from these allowances they exist below the poverty line. There will be 1,000,000 people who can never get sufficient to eat, sufficient to clothe them or decent housing accommodation. We have treated those poor people very shabbily indeed. That is the note I wish to strike in examining these Regulations.
I wish the Government would take a larger view. We do not reject these concessions, we welcome them for What they are, but we know they are not enough. It would he wrong for any Member of this House to represent this as a satisfactory allowance to the people whom he represents. I have lived in the industrial area which I represent during recent years, and I make this confession to the House, that my worst forebodings about the Unem-

ployment Assistance Board have not been fulfilled. Great sympathy has been shown by the officials of the Board, who have modified the asperity of the Regulations. Those who go round making the assessments have been better than their masters in Whitehall and at Thames House, and they are entitled to a word of recognition for the manner in which they have discharged their difficult and disagreeable duties. They have been generous at the risk, sometimes, of displeasing the heads of the organisation which they serve. I am sure that is so. They have admitted to me that the existence which they witness every day is not an existence which they would like to share themselves.
I live in a district where there are probably 2,000 or 3,000 people on the means test, and though, fortunately, the number is declining, the hard core of unemployment is as hard as ever it was. Little impression has been made upon it by anything which the Minister or the Government has done. That hard core shows very great resistance to any Government treatment. The effects of unemployment are cumulative. The people become poorer and poorer during every month or every year they are on the means test. The resources with which they have been able to eke out a livelihood grow more slender. Their homes get poorer—they are pathetically poor. I know men who were workmates of mine and schoolmates of mine, as good men as exist in this country, as good as anybody in this House, as good as anybody on the Treasury Bench. I would say the men of whom I speak are the best men I have ever known in my life, and they are poor, and are getting poorer every day. These new Regulations will not do justice to them. We are now spending £6,000,000 a day. I do not grudge it, I think that in present world conditions that expenditure is necessary, the thing had to be done; but how tiny a trickle this £2,500,000 a year becomes when compared with the annual expenditure of which this country is now proved to be capable.
I hope that when the Minister replies to-night he will say that this new provision is not his last word. This new concession has been made in response to pressure. I understand that the Minister himself saw the Trade Union Congress, a body which represents the industrial


classes as no other body does, not even as we in this House represent the workers. They put the case before the Minister. The first point they made was that the basis which has existed for years is not high enough. I should like the Minister, instead of making paltry alterations of 6d. or 1s. a week, to recast the whole plan of unemployment relief. I am now almost reconciled to the Unemployment Assistance Board—but without the family means test. But there are many anomalies which cannot be reconciled unless we redraft the whole of the conditions under which unemployment relief is paid.
Last Sunday a man called to see me, a coal miner, 57 or 58 years of age, about my own age. He has a boy of 24 or 25 working in the pit at a wage of £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week. The man complained, with a sense of wrongs and sorrow which had to be seen to be understood, that with every increase in the wages of his son from the age of 20 upwards there had been a decline in the Unemployment Assistance Board allowance to the home. The boy is now earning, probably, £2 15s. a week because he got an increase of 4s. a week which was arranged by the coal mining industry a few weeks ago. When his wages went up by 4s. the Unemployment Assistance Board took half of the increase away by reducing the allowance to the home. The father gets 9s. 6d. a week. He said that he was ashamed to have to depend upon his boy. He was ashamed that the boy had to throw in all his money to maintain the home.
People who say that this sort of thing does no injury to family life simply do not know. It is not the young man who maintains his father who complains; it is the father who complains, and very often he goes without some of the petty comforts which we all expect to get in order to be able to say that at least the Unemployment Assistance Board provides bread. That is not good enough. There is no change in the condition which says that a father shall not be dependent entirely upon his own boy's labour. Under these Regulations, it is quite possible still for a man with two sons at work not to receive a penny piece in unemployment allowance, except that the Minister may authorise a compassionate allowance of a few shillings. I know these cases in very large numbers. These

Regulations do not meet that kind of hardship. I do not know of any personal sorrow that is greater than that which is joined with the humiliation of a man who knows that the best years of life are gone and that he can see himself as a burden to his own children. That is a matter which I expect the Minister to take up.
We have over 1,000,000 unemployed. Everybody knows that these people do not get enough. I could not live on this unemployment allowance, although I have been accustomed to a hard life. I have lived as hard a life as anybody in this part of the House. Nobody in this House could live on that allowance, so why should we be the arbiters in respect of the 1,000,000 unfortunate people, who have to be kept perpetually down to this low standard? That is what is wrong with these allowances. I would like to see the allowance for children immediately raised not to 6d. but to a minimum of 1s. These allowances are inadequate. Why do we not use this opportunity to make a decent job, at least of the children's allowances and see that the children are properly fed and nurtured? These small allowances are a crime against the children, and I hope that the Minister will say to-night that this is not his last word and that he is contemplating a far wider re-arrangement of the whole of the unemployment regulations. Economy at the expense of the poor is not service to the nation. I hope the Minister will say that this miserable cheese-paring policy in regard to 1,000,000 of our people is to be brought to an end, and that we shall welcome very soon regulations which will make a reasonably generous provision for our unemployed people.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I would join with the hon. Gentleman in offering congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on his very successful first appearance at that Box. The hon. Gentleman went on to appeal not to the Parliamentary Secretary but to the Minister, and he said on two occasions in his speech that he hoped that these regulations were not the Minister's last word. Of course it does not very much matter whether it represents the Minister's last word or not, because the Act of 1934 deliberately took the initiative out of the hands of the Minister and placed it in the hands of a Board which is not responsible to this


House. That is one of the features of the Unemployment Assistance Board to which we and hon. Members above the Gangway have constantly objected. We hope to see it altered before very long.
I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his eloquent survey of the position of the unemployed at the present time, but I would like to raise three specific points which occurred to me when I read the regulations. I apologise to the House for going into details, but these are matters of very great importance to the people concerned. First of all, I see on page 4 a reference to winter relief. I hope that the intention is that this 2S. in the case of a married couple and 1s. in the case of a single person will be in addition to the Winter relief. The applicant will get his original scale and his winter relief and he will get this addition as well. I understand that to be the intention of the regulation. I should like some further assurance about how that will work out. The regulations last year said that, as winter was coming on, the officers of the Board could make such increases as might be reasonable in all cases. Last year and the year before the Board has been advising the officers about the way in which they were to use their discretion and they drew a line of demarcation between two classes of applicants. They advised their officers to use their discretion to grant an additional 2s. or 3s. of winter relief in cases where not more than 5s. was the approved allowance from the Board.
I assume that that is the principle to be adopted in future, when the computation has to be made by the officer. Where more than 50 per cent. of the whole income of the family is represented by allowances from the Board, is this additional money to be taken into account? It may make a considerable difference. If it is taken into account, you may have the peculiar situation that because a man was getting his relief under this regulation he could not have the winter relief. The two arrangements might very well cancel each other out. That is a matter on which the House would like more information. I would also like to have an assurance about the words at the bottom of page 7:
The general effect of regulations made in the terms of the present draft would, accordingly, be that, with the exception of a small number of cases raising special considerations, all existing allowances would be increased

by sums, the amount of which in an individual case would depend on the number and ages of the persons in the household.
I am not very happy about the words,
with the exception of a small number of cases raising special considerations.
As the Parliamentary Secretary explained the matter to the House, there was to be an automatic increase in every case, 2s. for the married couple and 1s. for the single person and 6d. for each child. One of the objections I take is that this House has passed regulations in which we gave a wide measure of discretion, and the way in which that discretion is to be used is determined from Thames House by circulars which never come before this House for Parliamentary approval.
Long before we passed the winter relief Regulations the Board was making its own arrangements, of very doubtful legality, without any Parliamentary sanction at all. These words are obviously words of limitation, designed in certain cases to take away this proposed increase of 2s., 1s. and 6d. Before we part with these Regulations we ought to know what are the exceptional cases contemplated by the Board. Will there be any modification if this Regulation is passed? There is bound to be a number of cases particularly in a constituency like my own where the people will get no benefit from the introduction of the Regulations. I think this point should be met. We are here conferring an increase of the amounts for those who come under the Unemployment Assistance Board, and yet so far as I am aware no similar arrangement has been made for increases to those who are drawing standard benefits. The result is that when these Regulations come into force those who have exhausted their benefit rates will be drawing higher sums than those who have paid up all their contributions.
That seems to me a very remarkable situation. It may be right or wrong to divide the unemployed, as we did in 1934, into two categories, but the division is there, and our unemployment assistance has proceeded on the assumption that we give greater advantages to those who have paid their contribution. They were to get something in return. It is only reasonable that those who are in full insurance should get at least equivalent benefit to those who are outside. It may


be that, later on, some recommendation will be made to the Unemployment Statutory Committee, but until that time comes we are creating a very remarkable anomaly by giving this increase to one class of unemployment and refusing it to the other. I welcome these small increases for what they are worth. Before we pass this Regulation I should be glad to have a further assurance on the points which I have raised.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I regret that I was not present at the earlier part of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I came in when he was about half-way through. I cannot promise him my entire future support; all I can promise him is a certain amount of criticism, as in the past. I want to raise one point under these Regulations, and that is the continuing difference between the position of the woman and the man. I could never find a reasoned defence why an unemployed woman with a record of long unemployment should be paid 1s. less than a man. Indeed, I think I could argue reasonably well that the average woman requires the same sum as a man in order to live. One of the features of modern industrial life in the great cities is that an unemployed woman has always to care for her outward appearance, good dress, character and style, even more than a man. I want in the first place to raise my voice in protest against this continued existence of the differentiation in these scales. One of the least things which we have a right to expect in any reform we carry out now, in view of the present situation, is that a woman should not in any way be treated in an inferior manner.
The next question to which I wish to draw attention is that referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)—the question of the stop-gap in the wages clause. I have examined these Regulations, and as I understand them the man governed by the wage stop can get nothing. As far as I can gather from the explanation which has been given, the Ministry have taken steps to deal with the 26s. as the benefit rate, and not only have they brought in Regulations increasing the amount, but they have amended the previous Regulations to allow an increase from 24s. to 26s. If they had not done that they could not have given the

2S. increase, but they have made no amendments in the original Regulations concerning the wage-stop clause. Therefore, those who are governed by the wages clause must be governed by the wage that they earned when they were last in employment. Unless these Regulations are altered large numbers who are governed by that clause will be affected. I should have thought the Government would have taken steps in this matter. A man may have last earned a comparatively low sum of £2. With the war situation he is either certain to have received an increase or to be in the course of negotiating for an increase. The Minister should have taken steps in this Regulation to alter the wages clause, and I trust he will reconsider the matter.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the treatment by the Board and the application of these Regulations to a class that is fairly common at the moment. One of the things that strikes me is how lucky the present Minister is. In my native city of Glasgow we have a river called the Clyde and there is a saying "If he fell into the Clyde he would come out with fish in his pockets." If the Minister fell into the Clyde he would come out with cork in his pocket; he would float. Even the war seems to have had this effect on him, by bringing in some kind of an increase or another. I would only say this about officials. I do not wish to praise them; I know most of them intimately, especially those in my own part of the world, and I get on reasonably well with them, but I think they are best left alone and that it is best neither to praise nor to attack them if it can be avoided. I would, however, point out that some of those people are getting £700 or £800 a year and the man who receives £800 a year does not need much assistance; he is getting all he wants.
With regard to the method of administration I would raise this point. One of the classes of cases which have been dealt with is the class of persons disqualified from standard benefit. As the Minister knows, when that class of case is examined by the insurance officer and by the Court of Referees a man can apply for an allowance, and this is the practice that the Board adopts, that before the man's case is heard by the Court of Referees they say "You must be punished." No decision is come to, and


they give the man a weekly grant which is much less than the weekly grant he would have received on standard benefit. It is a scale even less than the Board's scale, because they take the view that this class of case should in some way be punished. Whatever may be said, the general practice and the law of this country has been not to punish a man until his case has been heard. I take the view that this practice of the Board in cutting down in the interim period the allowances paid to men or to women whose cases are in dispute is quite wrong, and that it should not be tackled in that way at all. I would ask the Minister, is that the class of case, apart from the wage stop clause, which the Minister means will not get the increase which is asked for?
I want to raise one other matter. I know of a considerable number of men who have been out of work for five, six, seven, eight and 10 years. The longer a man is out of work the more difficult ii is for him to get his mind back to it. When I used to knock about the streets there was a saying, "The first year is the worst," meaning that after the first year you have served your apprenticeship in unemployment. I used to follow a highly skilled trade and I am still amicably associated with it; I am associated with moulders. One of the problems of the 10-year man is that his tools have gone; one of the difficulties of the ordinary tradesman is that in order to start employment again he needs tools. A moulder receives about £2, a pattern maker may receive £5 or £6 and a joiner about the same. A man may find himself in the midst of a very busy period for his particular trade but he has no tools. If I go to the Board and say, "This man can start work but he has no tools and therefore nobody can employ him" the Board say, "We cannot grant him tools, we cannot give him the money."
It seems to me to be the silliest thing possible. Here is a man offered work, the country needs his services or is alleged to be needing them, and he himself is most anxious to start work. In two or three weeks the Ministry would save the whole of the expenditure on tools; yet they say they cannot give them. I know of a case connected with the sunken "Athenia." A musician lost his tools—his musical instrument. It went down with the ship. I came along,

thinking that the Board were the appropriate people, and asked them to give him a grant to get his tools back again. They said, "No, it cannot be done; we are not allowed to do it." I would say to them that if the Board exist for any purpose at all, surely one of the purposes should be to rehabilitate a man in decent ordinary employment.
One matter which needs improvement is that connected with a woman's pride in dress. I want to see women proud of their attire. One of the requisites for a person who wishes to get a job is a decent pair of boots and decent clothes. I know numbers of cases of men who need boots and women who need decent clothes, and I would ask the Board to consider the possibility of helping men and women to get jobs by supplying them with the necessary clothes in addition to their allowance. There is one matter which needs consideration and it is this. Frequently, when the Board grant a man or a woman a sum for clothes, or it may be bedclothes or household things, they do something which is wrong and indeed in Scotland is not allowed. They come along and take it back in the form of a shilling or two shillings a week. Once a man has made out his case for these additional things this practice of collecting a shilling a week from the person should be stopped. This creation of a debt is annoying to the official and to everyone.
I now wish to refer to the treatment of relations of soldiers in the Army. There has been an outcry in this House and in the country generally about the treatment of officers in a submarine at Liverpool; certain people were paying Income Tax and there was an outcry about it. I have a good deal of sympathy with that sort of outcry, but if the outcry was justified there an outcry is more justified to-day with regard to the treatment of people associated with men in the Army. A widow may lose her husband while serving in the Army; I know of one whose husband was lost in the "Courageous." She receives 35s. a week for herself and her children. There is a son who is unemployed, and part of the 35s. has to keep him because he only receives the income for being one of the household and instead of receiving the full 15s. or 16s. he receives only 9s. or 10s. No man living with his mother in such a case can live on 9s. a week with-


out eating into the pension of the dead man, no matter how economical he may be. What is the position now about the counting-in of soldiers' and sailors' pensions and allowances? In the case of a mother who gets an allowance from her son how much of that allowance is taken into account—all, or part, or none? This counting-in is one of the cruellest things I know; one of the grimmest tragedies in our everyday life.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) properly said that one of the worst things about this is the ruination of family life. One of the things that I feel most about the means test is the way in which it hunts people about, people who have nothing to do with it. There are hosts of cases of this kind. A city typist works for what she considers a first-class firm of stockbrokers, solicitors or something like that, and earns a comparatively decent wage. Her father is on the means test. She has to declare her income, and to let everybody in that firm know that her father is on the means test. You may say that it should not be a matter for shame, but that type of girl feels it; it hurts her, and it holds her back. Often when it is a question of handling money it is felt that the responsibility should not be given to a girl whose father is unemployed. One of the tragedies of the thing is this laying bare of the whole family life.
One of the strange things about this war, which is supposed to be a strange war, is that after 14 weeks, with £6,000,000 a day being spent, this Government have not yet been able to solve the problem of putting 1,500,000 men and women back to work. This House may well be reminded that there are distressed areas and distressed people here still. I trust the House of Commons and the Minister will apply their minds to two things: to meeting the conditions of these people to a greater extent than the Minister has done to-night, and to solving this grim problem as a whole.

7.5 P.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I cannot let this Debate pass without protesting against what I consider the totally inadequate concession which the Government have made. I join with my colleagues in congratulating the new Parliamentary Secretary, but I feel that the Minister of

Labour was a little cruel in allowing the Parliamentary Secretary to make his maiden speech at that Box on these Regulations. Surely this is not a matter for mutual congratulation. This Debate simply focuses the attention of this House upon what I believe to be the shamefully low allowances to the unemployed. In fact, I believe that the new Parliamentary Secretary has spoken on the worst feature of the unemployment problem—that is, the treatment of the unemployed by the National Government. I do not charge the Parliamentary Secretary with being a little cynical, but when he says that this is a proper time to make this grant because we are nearing Christmas, that surely is matter for thought. Can one suggest, for instance, that an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week during the Christmas period—for that is what the new allowance will be for a child of under 16—can be regarded as a Christmas present from the National Government to the child of the unemployed man? What will this extra 6d. do? It will simply be swallowed up in the rise in the cost of living. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary is the father of a growing family.

Mr. Assheton: Mr. Assheton indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill: Then we share that experience. [Interruption]—though not the same family. One surely must remember that these are human problems we are discussing, and relate these things to our own lives. How would the Parliamentary Secretary or I feel if we knew that 3s. 6d. was the amount we were allowed by a beneficent Government to feed, clothe and shoe our children for Christmas week and give them a Christmas Day treat? I believe that the Minister of Labour in the past has been a very kind man—in the past. I have been told that his background was a very humane and tolerant one, and often I watch him, sitting on that bench and nodding his head. I ask him seriously, does he believe that this extra 6d. a week can be regarded as being in any sense adequate, or will he honestly admit that it really means permanent malnutrition for every child of the unemployed? I simply cannot think how I would keep a child of eight and another of 12 alive on 3s. 6d. a week. This is the time to ventilate these problems. Are the Government going to continue these shamefully small allowances to the un-


employed and this cheeseparing at the expense of the most helpless section of the community, the children? I cannot understand who advised the Minister on these allowances.

Mr. Buchanan: The Board; and they are well paid for doing it.

Dr. Summerskill: I am thinking in terms of the Advisory Committee. I am a member of a local authority which administers many institutions for the children, and when we are buying food in bulk for something like 200 or 300 children, in every instance with an eye to giving these children a nutritious diet—and, after all, the very simplest of diet—we cannot cater for them at a cost of less than 6s. 6d. a week each for food alone. That is buying in hulk for 200 or 300 children. Is the Minister going to continue this system, or can we hope that perhaps in a few months' time he will realise that it is in the best interests of lie State to look after the next generation?

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in his general condemnation of the basis of these scales, and also to associate myself with him in paying tribute to the officers of the Board for the very excellent way in which they are handling what is a very dirty job. I come in contact with them very frequently, and I think their service to the State should be noted with considerable harks in that they are doing a job that is extremely difficult.
I would like to raise a number of points with the Minister with regard to the Draft Regulations that are before us. On page 7 of the Memorandum it is stated:
Under the proposed Regulations, the normal allowance for a man and wife without resources and in the absence of any special circumstances will be 26s., and, as this is equal to the appropriate benefit rate, no addition would fall to be made.
The point I want to make is that the present benefit rate is 27s. We have under the Regulations and under the operations of the Board two scales being applied in cases where there are no other resources. There are the old cases which get 26S. under the first proviso, and the new cases which get 27s. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the practice which I have seen adopted in spite of

appeals to his appeal tribunals. That is a point which he ought to put right. The Parliamentary Secretary, in making his statement, said the purpose of these Draft Regulations is to meet the changed conditions. I want to contest that and to say, in the first place, that only 400,000 claimants are to get benefit. What is to happen to the other 600,000? This is like the Winter Adjustments Regulations; a proposal to give more relief to the unemployed, but to give it only to 50 per cent. of them. Is the same thing to operate here? You are now coming along as a sort of Father Christmas and saying that you are going to give the unemployed something additional, and we find that you are going to give it only to half of them. That is not playing the part of Father Christmas, but is rather mocking their misery and want. Take the case of a man and his wife, with a son who is earning 40s., and ignore the rent factor. For the normal assessment purpose, on one side of the paper you have 24s. under the first proviso, and if there, are other reasons, and on the other side, 40s., the earnings of the son. Twelve shillings of the earnings of 40s. are taken as being a contribution to the maintenance of the father and mother, and the unemployment allowance for the father is accordingly reduced to 12s. If there had been no son or no other resources, 26s. would have been the calculation of the need, but because he has a son at home he not only loses 12s., but also an additional 2s., making 14s.
Let us follow out this case still further, and I trust that the Minister will follow this example. This son, on 1st November, received an increase in wages to meet his increased cost of living of 4s., making his wages 44s., and because of this the Board come along and say to the father, "Because your son has had an additional 4s. to meet his increased cost of living we will take 2s. off your allowance." The Board use the addition of the 4s. given to the son to meet the increased cost of living in order to rob the old man of 2s. and save the State from its liability to maintain him. There is also the question of the winter conditions. The Unemployment Assistance officer looks at this case and says, "This man is entitled to 2s. winter addition if half of the income going into the house is derived from the boy, but because more than half the income is derived from outside they tell the old


man and woman, "You cannot even have the winter addition," and they are therefore robbed of another 2s. This is the use of Regulations for the purpose of making the means test worse than it was originally intended to be.
Apply Section 2 of the new regulations and what happens? In this case you give an extra 2s., and the father gets 12s., exactly the same amount as he was getting in October. You say that you have done something to meet the changed conditions, but actually you have not. If the son is at home, all that this man and woman will get is 12s. a week, and if he leaves home they will get 24s., and under the first proviso the old man will get another 2s., and a winter addition under the new regulation of 2s. 6d. He will get another increase under these Regulations of 2s., making 30s. 6d. a week, If the son goes away from home these old people will have 18s. 6d. more from the Board. Out of the son's 44s., you are taking 18s. 6d. a week in order to help to maintain that man and woman. Is that a thing that can be justified under the original Regulations? You said that the provision to be made was to be decided by the old calculation, and you have used the subsequent Regulations in order to increase the penalty imposed under the first Regulations. This is the consequence of trying to make an iniquitous means test fit into regulations which are drafted in such a way as to pass an unsuspecting House, and in dealing with this problem political probity has been entirely set aside. How do you propose under these Regulations to deal with the dignity money? Officers have 12s. worth of discretion for the purpose of giving 5s. Do you propose that there should be added to the 5s. the increases under these Regulations? Are you going to apply the old calculation that you apply in connection with rent, that is, to calculate the dignity money on the old basis? If you are not going to do that, it means that these people will stay where they are.
One hon. Member raised the question of the wage stoppage cases. What is the intention of the Regulations in regard to those cases? Are we to take it that irrespective of the family conditions and the increases provided for in these draft Regulations they shall be applicable to this type of case? We ought to have

some information on that point. Is it the human needs of the family that are to determine the right to these increases, and not some prejudice at the Board, which seems to take the view that even children may be starved, if necessary, in order to drive their fathers into uneconomic employment?
I received a letter on Saturday morning from a woman in the Rhondda, which deals with this position, and I want hon. Members to picture the woman writing the letter in a cottage kitchen in the Rhondda. Some hon. Members may say that it is sob-stuff. Here is a woman who is sobbing her heart out. She says:
I am writing to you to see it you can do something about this means test. It is awful, with the cold weather coming on when you want more fires and bedding and you cannot get anything. I got my husband home three years with bronchial asthma. He used to get the dole arid then public assistance, but owing to my two little boys, one 17 and the other 19, they have stopped everything. I was getting 3s. for nourishment. They have even taken that off me. I am paying 2s. 9d. a week for powder for my husband, and you know that boys' money isn't much. I pay 12s. 6d. rent, no apartments, 3s. for coal, and insurance, without light. I haven't got much left for food and other things.
You cannot expect boys to work and not give them anything. It isn't fair. This means test is terrible for everybody. The poor class have got to suffer every time. If the old people get a rise and somebody on the dole is living in the same house, they count it all up, and he gets his dole stopped, and they have to turn round and help keep them. So, whichever way it is, they are no better off. If some people are living with son or daughter and they are on the dole, it will be taken off to answer the old people's allowance.
I feel very often on a Saturday night, when I see how much I have got left in money and food to last till the following Friday, that I would like to gas myself and husband out of our misery. Only misery it is. To think these two boys have got to keep us or send the oldest, who is 19, from home, and he is very delicate, with a had chest. If you could do something, it would be a Godsend for everybody. It has hit the poor people. The suffering it has caused only us mothers know, but we have got to show a smiling face when we are half starving. If we go on public assistance, my boys that are married have got to help keep us, and they don't earn enough for themselves, with families to keep. It is awful the suffering and unhappiness it has caused.
When I see my husband looking at me with his eves full of tears it finishes me. I know what he is thinking, that my boys have got to keep him. I cannot get what I ought to get for him. I have bread and tea, to keep what I have got for the boys who are working, because they want some-


thing when they are working hard. I say to myself, what I would give to get a good meal, because I don't know what it is. How many mothers are the same? We go without so that our husbands or children can have what they can. So the rise won't do the old people much good after all. It will be more worry all through the means test. I hope you will excuse me writing to you, but you are our only hope. May God bless you in, your fight to get rid of the misery of the means test.
She signs herself as a broken-hearted wife and mother. If the right hon. Gentleman is short of a testimonial I would present him with that letter. These are the conditions which we say ought to be removed. The draft Regulations are a mockery to the unemployed in the country.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We have been considering in this House during the last few weeks various aspects of the question of allowances and remuneration to various classes of the community. This is only one aspect of them, and we should relate anything we are doing to-night to the other problems, such as the payments to soldiers, their dependants, unemployment insurance, the question of the abolition of the means test, etc. I should not like it to be thought that in advocating an increase in the amount of these allowances that are before us to-night we have not very strongly in mind the necessity of increases on the same lines in connection with all these other matters which arise and have arisen on different occasions. I hope that we shall have very prominently in mind the matter to which we should first address ourselves when we come back, namely, the question of old age pensions.
The new rates that have been fixed are, of course, an increase, but they are still far below, substantially below, the primary needs of the population. If you take these primary needs, which have been so carefully estimated by expert committees, and take into consideration only the bare living necessities, with nothing extra for things like fares, stamps, insurances, and so on, we shall find that the British Medical Association have gone very carefully into the question as far as food standard is concerned. The other part of the question, such as clothing, feeding, light and fuel, has been carefully investigated by the well-known Mersey Survey Poverty Line. In these

estimates rent has been assumed to be the scale allowance under the Unemployment Assistance Board. In considering these figures we have to remember that they are pre-war prices, so that the position is substantially worse to-day than when the estimates were made.
What do we find? Let me take the example of a man, his wife and three children. The estimate of the primary needs of those individuals is 44s. a week. That is the very least that five human beings can carry on with. The Unemployment Assistance Board scale is to be increased from 35s. to 38s. 6d., provided there is no wage stoppage, but that is still 5s. 6d. below the primary needs standard. The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this, and I hope he will be good enough to give a definite answer: Why is it that a scientific basis of this kind having been arrived at, the Government are fixing a standard substantially lower? I can give four possible reasons, and I hope the Minister will say what is the reason. He may say that the estimate is inaccurate and has not been properly worked out. He may say that he does not dispute the estimate but that there is not money available. There is always money available if it is very urgently wanted, as we know perfectly well. I cannot think of any case for providing national money more necessary than for primary needs of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that having regard to the rates of wages paid in different parts of the country these allowances would be too high and that they would compete with wages. If that be so it is a very strong argument in favour of legislation—it might have to be by trade boards or other means—for raising the standard of wages throughout the country. That is the way to deal with a question of that kind. He may say that nothing is perfect in this world and that we can only approach perfection by degrees and that this is a step forward; that he would like to see other steps taken in due course, and give everybody what they ought to have. I do not think that will be a very satisfactory answer. I want to raise the point, and I think it is important, that if you can bring in a scientific test, if you can relate what you are doing in the way of allowances to a scientifically-worked-out standard, you have something to go upon, and some-


thing to answer. I hope it will be the policy of the Minister, who, I know, would like to do everything he can, and the Government, in the matter of allowances and all these other problems, to give to the people of this country everything in the way of allowances to which scientific tests have proved they are entitled for their sustenance and maintenance.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I should not like this opportunity to pass without a member of the party I represent in this House saying a word about the matter under discussion. To me the Unemployment Assistance Board has always seemed to be an unfortunate way of dealing with this question. I have always had a feeling that in the Debates on the matter there is a certain unreality, because the Board is so much out of the control of the House of Commons. I sympathise with the Minister of Labour who, in relation to the Board is little else than a messenger boy coming to the House of Commons with a message from the Unemployment Assistance Board as to what is going to be done. One does not like to be ungrateful when a certain improvement is being made, but with regard to this improvement I wonder that the Board did not show more imagination and did not realise the position of their fellow beings in this country who are unemployed, when they bring forward such a pitiful improvement in view of the rise in the cost of living and the difficulties which people are called upon to face. The whole Debate has been an exposure of the utter inadequacy of the scales which are being provided. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on the way in which he presented our opposition to the means test and the work of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
One point in connection with these Regulations is the fact that standard benefit will now be less than the unemployment assistance allowance in many cases. The result of this disparity between standard benefit and the unemployment assistance allowance is going to result in a tremendous addition of work for the Unemployment Assistance Board, for people who are now in receipt of standard benefit will be making an application for

supplementation to the Unemployment Assistance Board. If half a million unemployed are going to the Board for a supplementary allowance, it is quite evident that a tremendous additional burden will be thrown upon the Board at a time when so much additional work has already been thrown upon them owing to the war in connection with the administration of pensions and the investigations and provisions for allowances for dependants of soldiers. I wonder that the Minister of Labour, when he was faced with this recommendation from the Unemployment Assistance Board, did not see to it that there was synchronisation and got the Unemployment Insurance Committee to deal with the matter so that there might have been an addition in the rate of standard benefit in harmony with the new rates provided for unemployment assistance. It is obvious that there is going to be a great waste of money in connection with these matters in administration, which might very well have been saved if standard benefit had been increased at the same time in respect of children's allowances. I regret that the Minister did not take the necessary steps in this direction.
Sometimes when I listen to debates on the treatment of the unemployed under the Unemployment Assistance Board, I wonder who these people are. One would almost think that they are the worst people in the country, whereas they are our brothers and sisters who, through no fault of their own, are placed in this unfortunate position. The very fact that they are drawing unemployment assistance shows that they have borne more than their share of unemployment, and yet they are to be subjected to so many indignities. The Board and the Government, instead of bringing forward these new Regulations with their pitiful little increases, should have shown more imagination and have swept away the means test altogether and provided decent treatment for these people.
Who are the unemployed who are being dealt with under the Regulations? In a large percentage of cases they are men who are in the Services, soldiers, sailors and airmen who protect this mighty Empire. Yet their parents, their brothers and their sisters, are put in a miserable position owing to the operation of the means test. I wonder the Government


have not shown the capacity to deal in a totally different way and in a drastic way with this question, and to make adequate provision for these people. Extraordinary things happen in these days of war. Perhaps I may be allowed to give an illustration by referring to what has happened in Glasgow, and the way in which the Public Assistance Committee, which works alongside the Unemployment Assistance Board in making provision for people, deals with blind people in the present circumstances. I know of one case of a woman whose son gave her £2 a week when working. He was in a good job, and then he joined the Army as a motor driver. She had her old age pension of 10s. supplemented by 17s. a week. Her son in the Army allotted her 7s. a week, and the Public Assistance Committee deducted 3s. 6d. a week from the 17s. because of that allotment. She received 7s. a week instead of the former £2 a week from her son, and from that 7s. the Public Assistance Committee in Glasgow had the cheek to deduct 3s. 6d. a week.
It is the same with the Unemployment Assistance Board. They seem to be willing to take the services of men to carry on the work of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; they are willing to call upon them to make the greatest of all sacrifices; and yet, when the relatives of these men are in need, they treat them in the miserable and mean fashion exemplified in the Regulations before us to-night. I am sorry that the Government have not seen their way, in the circumstances of the time, to see that every person has an adequate income and that every individual in the community has the opportunity of having full means of subsistence. The position in which we are at the present time is all wrong. There is this miserable little sum for the unemployed, and yet the country is spending £6,000,000 a day in carrying on the war. It is absolutely wrong. I hope that the unemployed people and their friends throughout the country will see to it that the Government feel the pressure of public opinion, and that this will result in sweeping away the means test and giving decent treatment to the unemployed.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I wish, first of all, to thank the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) for their kind refer-

ences to my hon. Friend. I am sure we all look forward to the time when the hon. Member for Gorbals will give my hon. Friend no quarter in our Debates on these subjects, which are the constant preoccupation of the House, and to which my hon. Friend and I are constantly forced to listen and answer.
We are debating a problem which is ages old, and although I need not say much about general questions, I hope to refer to them before I come to the end of my speech. There are one or two special points with which I should like to deal at once. I was glad that the hon. Member for Gower and other hon. Members paid a tribute to the actual working out of the system of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Whatever may be the views of hon. Members on the basis or structure, they all agree that the work is being done with great understanding and humanity. I must, however, enter a caveat about the qualification mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower, who said that the officers of the Board were doing better than their masters. That is really not so. It is often overlooked in Debates in the House that one cannot assess the value of the system of the Unemployment Assistance Board for the prevention and relief of distress without having regard not merely to the scales that are put down in figures, but to the wide discretionary powers in more than one direction which are contained in the Regulations governing the whole work of the Board. The very happy things we have heard about the fine work done by individuals would not have been possible but for their masters' consideration in drafting these Regulations. Subject to that small caveat, I am happy to have heard these tributes to the working of the unemployment assistance scheme. I am sure that a great many Members were surprised at the way in which it has worked out in the matter of the relations between the applicants and the staff of the Board.
With regard to the Regulations themselves, I had quite expected that I should be told that what we are doing to-day is not enough. There is one word that I have missed. I had quite expected to hear what we propose called a crumb, but it was not. I mention the word myself in order to add this, that those who have to deal with the problem of relief of the poor, whether able-bodied or not able-


bodied—and here I reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) about the National Government and 3s. 6d. for a child, with the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) sitting on the Front Bench opposite listening to her speech—must have regard to two things, not merely the individual sum given to each person, but the sum total every week, every month, every year, in relation to the whole structure of our financial obligations. When the hon. Lady, in her genial, her very friendly and personal way, put to me the question whether I thought 3s. 6d. was enough, I saw sitting opposite the right hon. Member for South Hackney—who I regret is not here now—and I took from my file the particulars of the standard of the London County Council. What did I find? Precisely the same figure.
It is not enough to make the party point which the hon. Lady was making. She must realise that we must have regard not merely to one problem but to many problems, not merely to one 3s. 6d., 4s. or 4s. 6d., but to hundreds of thousands of them every week. The fact that this addition, which has been described as insufficient, amounts to £2,500,000 a year illustrates the difficulties of those in responsible positions, whether in the local government or in the National Government, when they have to deal with this problem, which is older than Elizabeth and which has perplexed the minds and touched the sympathies of men of all sorts and kinds for hundreds of years. Let me here add that we have in this country a system of unemployment relief for able-bodied people which will bear comparison with that of any nation in the world. So much for the general points.
As usual, hon. Members have been very precise in their speeches, dealing with different passages in the draft Regulations with regard to the practice of the Board and the instructions of the Board. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Gorbals summed up the main points. The hon. Member for Dundee asked about winter relief. He broadly stated the method by which relief is given, but not quite. Although the hon. Member has, broadly, stated the basis on which winter additions are made, cases in which the other resources exceed

the allowance by a small sum are given additions. It is not an arbitrary or rigid fixed percentage. The hon. Member and also the hon. Member for Gorbals, asked me about the precise practice which the Board intends to follow after the regulations have been approved, if they are approved by the House to-night, and I will answer them in precise form. The additions now made to the Board's allowance will be taken into account to decide on which side of the line the case falls. It means that the applicants will get the advantage of it and of course, as I have said, it is not an arbitrary, fixed percentage.
One or two hon. Members have raised the question of the wage stop. It is generally overlooked that there is a discretion and that the Board can waive the wage stop in cases where there are special circumstances. Again, the suggestion is that the practice is arbitrary, but that is not so. The Board realise that the question of the wage stop will assume greater importance in a small number of cases, in view of the increases now given. Instructions will be given to the officers to pay special attention to such cases and to see that the operation of the wage stop does not give rise to hardship. It is not the intention to make an arbitrary application of the wage stop. Any increases of wages given as a result of the rise in the cost of living, will be taken fully into account in determining the figure to be taken for wage stop purposes, and that, I am sure, will reassure hon. Members who have raised the question.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will any increase of wages given as a result of the increased cost of living raise the ceiling where the wage stop has been fixed prior to those increases?

Mr. Brown: I have said that it will be taken fully into account, and I am sure the House will not expect me to go further than that in replying to this Debate. One other specific point was raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals in a powerful passage in his speech about widows' pensions. I have made inquiry about that, and I am assured that no part of a widow's pension is taken into account in the case of an unemployed son. He would be given the scale rate of 10s.

Mr. Buchanan: That is the point. I said he would get the 10s., but I also say that the scale rate of 10s. does take into


account the widow's pension, because no man of that age could live on 10s. a week. Where there is only a widow's pension coming in, that man should be treated on the same level as if he were a lodger outside the family.

Mr. Brown: I misunderstood the hon. Member's argument. That, of course, raises a general consideration to which I sha11 come later. I thought from what the hon. Member said that he complained of a case in which this practice was not being applied.

Mr. Buchanan: When you follow that practice you take into account the 35s., but if that man was a stranger and a lodger, the 35s. would not be counted. But because it is his mother who is getting 35s. you reduce him from 16s. to 10s. It is treated as part of the family income. I say you have no right to do it, and that it is a mean thing.

Mr. Brown: That is the general case which has been put up all along by those who have objected to the family basis for the test of need.
I was asked also by the hon. Member for Dundee what was meant by the phrase in the explanatory memorandum "small number of special cases." This is not meant to be, as I think one hon. Member suggested, a form of words to enable us to defeat the general object of the Regulation. All those who have had to deal with this difficult problem know that there are some very difficult cases, cases that come up before the advisory committees, for instance, of men who have refused employment or of men who are living in unsatisfactory circumstances, and who make no attempt to change. There is a small number of special cases of that kind.

Mr. Foot: Surely they would come under the provisions already included in the Act. There is ample power to deal with cases of special difficulty. Why should you deprive them of an increase which is otherwise automatic, as a result of this Regulation?

Mr. Brown: No doubt if the question were put to the advisory committees which have had to deal with these cases they would be able to raise the strongest objections to them. The next question which has been raised by several hon. Members although it does not strictly arise on this Debate, is that of the rela-

tion of benefit to need. Benefit has never been paid on the basis of need. The Board's powers give, as the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) hinted, an opportunity for supplementing from other sources, if benefit is reckoned in any case to be insufficient.

Mr. Stephen: Unemployment assistance.

Mr. Brown: I understood that the hon. Member was complaining of certain action by the Glasgow authority with regard to that matter. The fact is that for years before the setting up of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee we had the most unsatisfactory conditions in connection with the Fund. It never had until the last five years any reasonably settled basis and we do not propose now to alter the procedure. At the moment the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee are taking evidence from all kinds of persons and organisations as to what they think should be done at the moment. I would add this, in order that the figures may be put on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Certain newspapers are treating the present balance in the Fund as a surplus, but balances are not surpluses and the House will determine whether there is a disposable surplus in the Fund or not when I tell them that on the 9th December the balance in the Fund was £56,314,000, but, on the other side, it must be remembered that on 9th December there was a debt outstanding of £77,082,000. Those who talk about the balances on the one hand seem to forget about the debt on the other and you cannot treat the £56,000,000 as a surplus to be disposed of, as some controversialists outside the House have tended to deal with it.
The rest of the Debate has turned on three general issues. The first was put in a particular form by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who asked why we did not adapt our standards to certan theoretical calculations that have been made. He called them scientific calculations but I call them theoretical and the fact that some scientists have made these calculations does not necessarily mean that they rest on a basis of ascertained facts. People of various kinds and various bodies, including a number of able men, have inquired into this difficult problem of the standard of living but you find very few of them in complete agreement.


There are half a dozen different sets of figures which I could give to the House, and the fact is that it is one thing to make these calculations, but it is an entirely different thing to change the whole structure of the national life in the light of social and industrial considerations, and say that the standards that have been drawn up by particular bodies for the purpose of particular investigations should necessarily be adopted by the Government of the day.

Mr. Grenfell: We admit the variations in these assessments of the needs of individual and family life, but can the Minister point out a single one in which the assessment of need is lower than the scales adopted by the Government?

Mr. Brown: I know of some that are not so high, but when regard is had, not necessarily to the scales themselves, but to the allowances, to the discretionary power with regard to rentals, and so on, I would say that I do not know of any system of relief anywhere in the world which will compare with the system which we apply to our able-bodied unemployed. That is not to say that I am saying the last word that will be reached in this matter. It has been said that I was tender hearted at one time, but that I am now hard hearted. [Interruption.] It was the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham who said it, and I am quoting her. How she knew, I do not know, but she said it, and when things like that are said, I can only say that since I have been in office there have been continuous adjustments, and they have all been upwards. I have no doubt that as time goes on we may perhaps come to a point where we may even satisfy the theoretical standards to which the hon. Member referred, and I am sure that then there will be other theorists who will set higher standards, and the same complaints will be made all over again.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? One of the standards which is always quoted as far higher than his is the standard set up by the Ministry of Health. Why does he not set up his own standard, if he is not satisfied with that?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady knows that she will lead me into a controversy.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite had better not cheer that too loudly, because if we did get into that controversy, we should at once come to the problem of family allowances, and there their agreement with the hon. Lady would end at once. The hon. Member for West Fulham might agree, but I am not at all sure that the industrial Members sitting below her would agree.

Dr. Summerskill: In 1930, when this question was before the Executive, the political members agreed with us on family allowances.

Mr. Brown: But the hon. Lady does not say the industrial members or the industrial trade unions. Let me say one other thing. Hon. Members who have raised the question of the means test would not expect me to say anything more than this, that having surveyed the whole field, having carefully followed the Debates in the last four and half years, having put to the House in the early days the questions involved in changing to a family means system, the Government see no reason to change the present basis. There may be adaptations, but more than that I cannot say.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House whether these draft regulations or anything that is contained in the provision for the next period will make it possible for the dignity money to be altered in any way?

Mr. Brown: If dignity money is given, it is given on general grounds and not on grounds of household need.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Board are considering the question raised about sons and daughters working at home, and whether the Board are prepared in the immediate future to allow more than is allowed now? You are standardising poverty and causing a good deal of distress in some homes by your present policy.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman put up to the Board the reconsideration of the question of taking in, say, a pension such as I have described, or a soldier's allowance? Surely, when the Board last considered these matters they were not in the midst of a war and all its attendant difficulties,


and I would ask, whatever else you do, that you should cut out completely any association of allowances of pensioners with the question of allowances from the Unemployment Board.

Mr. Brown: I would only go so far as to say that I will call the attention of the Board to all that has been said on these matters this evening.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1939, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 5th December, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

GAS AND STEAM VEHICLES (EXCISE DUTIES).

8.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I beg to move,
That as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, the duties of Excise chargeable in respect of mechanically-propelled vehicles under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as 'the relevant paragraph'), shall be varied as follows:—

(1) For the purpose of computing the rate of the duty chargeable under any provision of the relevant paragraph in respect of a goods vehicle, the weight unladen of the vehicle shall, if the vehicle carries a container for holding gas for the propulsion of the vehicle or plant for producing such gas, be reduced—

(a) where the weight unladen exceeds twelve hundredweight but does not exceed three tons, by half a ton;
(b) where the weight unladen exceeds three tons but does not exceed six tons, by three-quarters of a ton;
(c) where the weight unladen exceeds six tons, by one ton;

(2) Notwithstanding that a goods vehicle is used for drawing a trailer, the vehicle shall not be chargeable with duty under sub-paragraph (d) of the relevant paragraph if the trailer is used solely for the carriage of—

(a) a container for holding gas for the propulsion of the vehicle; or
(b) plant and materials for producing such gas;

(3) Sub-paragraph (c) (ii) of the relevant paragraph (which relates to goods vehicles propelled by steam or constructed or adapted to use coal gas as fuel) shall have effect as if the word 'gas' were substituted for the words 'coal gas';

(4) The rates of duty chargeable under the said sub-paragraph (c) (ii), as amended by this Resolution shall, in the case of vehicles not exceeding one-and-a-half tons in weight unladen, be as follows:—



£


Not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen
10


Exceeding 12 cwt. but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen
15


Exceeding 1 ton but not exceeding 1½ tons in weight unladen
20;

(5) for the purpose of this Resolution and the relevant paragraph as amended by this Resolution, the expression 'gas' shall mean any fuel that is wholly gaseous at a temperature of sixty degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure of thirty inches of mercury.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

For a Parliamentary Secretary to propose a remission of taxation, a privilege which is usually reserved for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, makes this something of a red letter day. The object of the Resolution is to implement one of the concessions with regard to gas-propelled vehicles which was promised by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. It is a concession in respect of the taxation of goods vehicles as it affects additional weight of gas containers or plant. Broadly speaking, this will not count in future in assessing the taxation on unladen weight. The Resolution does three main things, which I will explain very briefly. First of all, where the equipment is carried on the vehicle as opposed to being on a trailer, allowances varying from half a ton to one ton are to be deducted from the unladen weight for the purpose of computing the tax, so as to compensate for the extra weight of the gas-producing equipment. That is paragraph (1) of the Financial Resolution. Secondly, where the equipment is carried on a trailer used solely for this purpose, the normal trailer duty, which varies from £10 to £20, will be waived. That is paragraph (2) of the Resolution. Paragraphs (3) and (5), which make the word "gas" applicable instead of the words "coal gas," are designed to cover all the forms of gas propulsion so far developed. The effect of the Resolution will be to remove the burden of increased taxation that might


otherwise arise from the production or the conversion of gas-propelled vehicles. The object is to place these gas-propelled vehicles on the same basis as petrol-driven vehicles, and I am sure the House will agree that it is a step in the right direction.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: So far as I can see, we on these benches agree that the proposal is a good one. The object is to enable vehicles to be run on the product of coal instead of on petrol. In present circumstances it is a reasonable proposal, and the object of the Resolution is to enable it to be done without the cost being greater than it would be for petrol vehicles of the same horse-power. In view of that fact, we offer no opposition to the Resolution.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: All that is wrong with this proposal is that it should have been carried out years ago. It should have been done at least at the beginning of the war. Having said that, I congratulate the Department which has been responsible for getting the Chancellor to make this proposal. In France this system has been in being for a considerable time, and, consequently, they have not had the transport difficulties that we have had. I stood for 40 minutes on Saturday night in a long queue in Manchester waiting to board a bus. That is typical of the position in many industrial centres, and I hope that this Resolution will improve matters in that direction. I realise the necessity for rationing petrol, and I hope that this Resolution will lead to an improvement in transport, and that the Minister of Transport will stimulate local authorities and others to adopt the system which the Resolution encourages. On behalf of people living in industrial centres I welcome the Resolution, and hope that transport authorities will take early advantage of it so that they can improve transport facilities.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Resolution deals with trailers, and I would like to know whether the Government have yet decided that there should be a man on every trailer. I have raised this question for several years, and I do not know why it has been turned down. I was informed in the House some time ago that it was

embodied in a new Act at that time, but I find that trailers are still being used without men on them. This is not the case on the Continent with all its drawbacks, for it is in operation in Germany, France and Belgium. Has the position been rectified by this Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not catch the hon. Member's opening remarks as I was discussing another matter here, but he was getting a little wide of the Resolution before the House in his later remarks. I do not think he can get an answer now, and he must put a question down later.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for the Defence Services, for Civil Defence, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the Government may be effected therein."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

8.18 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I do not raise any objection to this Committee carrying out the function we desire it to carry out, but I rise to ask why only two Scottish Members of the House are appointed on a committee of 28.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): We are now only on the preliminary question of the appointment of the Committee. The question of the names will be put separately.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Mr. Davidson: I do not raise this question from the point of view of Scottish nationalism, but from the point of view of having the best committee we can to look after this important part of national work. This is a committee to look after the expenditure on Defence Services and Civil Defence. In the past the Government will agree that Scotsmen have proved themselves capable enough of dealing with such a question. We


have a group in the House of Commons of 73 Members who come from the country which is at present more involved in the war than any other part of the British Empire. More attacks are being made on Scotland than on the other parts of the country, and there is necessity for a greater interest to be shown in its defence. It has been recognised by our enemy as the part of this country which will have to be dealt with first if they are to inflict defeat upon us. It may be that I shall be told that the composition of this Committee was arranged through the usual channels. If that is so, all I want to say is that both sides of the usual channels ought to be completely flooded. There has been a complete neglect of the rights of one of the most important groups in the House, and I hope that if any such committee is set up in future the Government will recognise that Scotland is not so far away, and that its people ought to be adequately represented upon it.
Question, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members," put, and agreed to.
Committee nominated of Mr. Ammon, Sir Charles Barrie, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Brooke, Lady Davidson, Mr. Ede, Mr. Alfred Edwards, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Sir Ralph Glyn, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Hely-Hutchinson, Mr. Higgs, Sir William Jowitt, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Sir Adam Maitland, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Pym, Sir George Schuster, Sir John Shute, Mr. Silkin, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne, Sir Harold Webbe, Mr. Graham White, Miss Wilkinson, Sir Herbert Williams, Mr. Woodburn and Sir Robert Young.

Ordered,
That Seven be the quorum.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit not-withstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sup-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That the quorum of any Sub-Committee so appointed shall be two.

Ordered,
That any Sub-Committees so appointed shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place.

Ordered,
That any Sub-Committee so appointed shall report any evidence taken by them to the Committee."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Colonel Clifton Brown) proceeded to put successively the names of the Members of the Committee on the Order Paper.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I desire to raise a similar point with regard to the composition of this Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Member. No Amendment can be moved except to one particular name. That is the Ruling which has been laid down.

Mr. Davidson: In order to be able to say what I want to say, I should like to move that none of the Members whose names are on the Order Paper should be on this particular Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can say, "No," when the Question is put.

Mr. Davidson: I desired to move that the name of Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman be removed from the Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only Amendment that can be moved is to the last name on the list of Members of the Committee—Mr. Charles Williams.

Mr. Davidson: Then I should like to move that the name of Mr. Charles Williams be removed from the Committee. This is a Committee which deals with the very important question of the publication of the Debates. As I have already said, there are 73 Scottish Members in this House, many of whom speak


with a good Scottish accent, and there ought to be representatives of Scotland on such a Committee to ensure that anything they say in the House may be adequately and completely reported by those having a full knowledge of their language. I think it is a disgrace that there is not on this Committee a Scottish Member of the Opposition. It is an indication of this Government's complete lack of knowledge of the needs of the House of Commons that they put forward a Committee such as this without giving adequate representation to the nation upon whom they depend so much when they are in need. Having said that, I respectfully withdraw my objection to the last name on the list.
Committee nominated of Sir Reginald Clarry, Mr. Cluse, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Isaacs, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Dr. Morrison, Mr. Naylor, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Graham White, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the House of Laity (Postponement of Election) Measure, 1939, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Mr. Cape: I beg to second the Motion. Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to raise the question of old age pensions, arising out of an answer given at Question Time to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to give a satisfactory reply, and I thought if the matter were brought forward to-night he would have a better opportunity to explain to us exactly what the position is. The Chancellor has told me that it would be very difficult for him to be here to-night, and I realise his difficulty and raise no objection to his absence, because he has left his very able deputy to give the reply. The question of an increase of pensions to the aged has been under review for some time. It is no new matter to the House, and there is no excuse for the Government to keep putting us off with the statement that they have not been able to arrange anything, for they have had ample time in which to do so.
In April last the Chancellor made a reply to the Trades Union Congress representatives that he had heard from us in the matter and would give consideration to that point of view. In July we had a pledge from the Prime Minister that he would have an examination made into the question and report to the House at an early opportunity. The war broke out and we did not get that report, and it seemed to us that the Government did not intend to do anything at all. On 1st November, through the leader of our party in this House, we again brought the question forward in a full Debate. On that occasion a number of old people were sitting in the Gallery, and they went away with the impression that although they had not got anything at the moment at least something would be done for them by Christmas time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) went into the Gallery and sat among the old people. They assured him that they thought something would be done for them by Christmas time. We expected that something would be done by now.
On that occasion the Government carried an Amendment. Those who heard the Debate realised that every Member on the Government side of the House agreed with us that something should be done. Some who supported the Amendment said that they trusted that the Government would come forward in a month's


time with a scheme. I notice that the seconder of that Amendment is here now. He had a very difficult task on that occasion, and I believe that he expected that something would have been done by now. Nothing has happened, and we have brought the matter forward again to-night in the hope of being able to get some understanding from the Government that something will be given before Christmas.
I want to assure the Government that the agitation on this matter is just as keen as ever it was, probably more keen, because of the disappointment. Where-ever we go and whatever meeting we address, the people listen to us when we tell them about the prosecution of the war, and then they say: "We hope that you will not forget the extremity of the old age pensioners." We believed that the Government would have done something before Christmas, because that is what we have given out to our people. Are we to be told to-night that, although we shall go into the Recess on Thursday next, nothing is to be done in the interval and that we shall come back in January again to meet the same kind of thing? If that is so, it is not the right thing to do to the aged people. There are nearly 2,500,000 aged people and many of them are in dire poverty.
Many of these people are anxiously hoping that something will be done for them, and I ask, is it fair when the trust of these men and women is put in our charge that we should neglect them, as we are doing? We are spending huge sums of money on other things. We were told by a representative of the Government that what we ask for would be done. I feel very strongly on the matter. During the last few weeks I have withheld any action on this matter, and have no attempted to put questions, because I said: "I will let it go until the very last before I make an appeal." Last week I put a question on the Paper in the hope that something would mature this week, but nothing has come. We do not want to have to tell our people: "After all our efforts, Christmas will come round and nothing will be given to you." I trust that my gloomy thoughts may be relieved by the Financial Secretary and that he can tell us something that will cheer us and give relief to the aged people.
Many hon. Members on the opposite benches feel keenly on this matter. I

have here a cutting from a newspaper in which the writer says:
For 30 years I have been a Tory. Thirty years, until last Wednesday, when the representatives of my party in Commons gave an amazing exhibition of ingratitude and neglect towards the old people, the Empire's mothers and fathers. I am ashamed to feel I have supported such party so long—a party that can calmly turn down the plea for increased pensions on grounds of economy! We are already the world's laughing stock and now we callously disregard the people who were the backbone of the country. Is it possible for you or the Labour party to publish the names of M.Ps. who voted against the Measure and placard it in every constituency?
That is the feeling of Members of the Conservative party who supported that party in the hope that it would recognise the needs of the aged people. That feeling has prevailed generally. I do not want to build my case upon that or to think that I am forcing something out of the Government on the ground that they might be beaten in the election for not supporting the old age pensioners. My plea is that something be given to this body of men and women. They have arrived at the stage of life when they can no longer fight for themselves. They have done all the fighting they can for the nation and for their children, and they can no longer do that kind of thing. They have put their trust in their representatives on the Floor of the House of Commons. My plea to-night is that we are sent here to alleviate the sufferings of these persons who cannot fend for themselves, and that it is our bounden duty not to allow Christmas to pass without giving help in some form.
It would be a joy to me if I could go out to-morrow and let it be known by the aged people that we have prevailed in the House of Commons, and that something will be done. My plea is for an immediate advance of 5s. I do not want to wait while some arrangement is being made between the Trades Union Congress and employers. That can be examined, and when the time comes they can bridge the difficulty. First of all we ought to do something direct. It will cost £30,000,000 per annum, but we are paying £6,000,000 per day for the war, and five days of war expenditure devoted to the aged people would bring joy to them. It is not too much to ask, unless those who are spending huge sums of money think that it cannot be done. I do not want to be put off by being told that the


Government have not been able to make arrangements between the employers and the trade union representatives. I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us that the Government are prepared now for the time being to grant 5s. a week. The negotiations with the Trades Union Congress can be gone into, and the permanent scheme arrived at. Something immediate is wanted and that is why we are raising this matter. We regret having to told the House up at a time like this, but I cannot make any apology for it.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Markham: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put forward his Motion with restraint and dignity, and I am glad that it was straight to the point and not confused by the introduction of sob-stuff. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting his plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an immediate statement with regard to the position of old age pensioners. I am fully aware that this country is in need of every penny that it can raise through taxation for the successful prosecution of the war, and no one who has the slightest interest in the financial position of the country could light-heartedly consider any increase in our expenditure at the present time. The figure of £6,000,000 a day as our war expenditure is mentioned in some quarters as though that were a reason for raising allowances to any conceivable degree to every conceivable person. I am one of those who resist these tendencies in the main, because I do not consider that high expenditure in one field is justification for high expenditure in another; indeed it is rather a reason for a balancing economy. But the old age pensioners have an unanswerable case, a case that in charity and in justice cannot be denied by this House.
Some of us on the Government side have been over-patient with the Government in their treatment of this particular problem and of this particular class in the country. We have been patient to this extent: most loyally in Division after Division we have voted with the Government when they have promised inquiries, when they have promised to go into the case and to find out what are the rights and the wrongs, or to find out what should be the contributions and what the

payments. It is well known that there are classes of old age pensioners who have no right to it—people who are already in receipt of incomes, as has been said in this House, as large as those of Members of Parliament. I agree that there are anomalies and that there is a small number of people to-day who are drawing old age pensions and who ought not to have them, but the fact that a small injustice is being done is no excuse for withholding the greater justice that ought to be done. It is true that the amount involved by an increase of 5s. a week, which I think should be the minimum increase, would be at least £13,000,000. But this sum was, in my opinion, no excuse for delaying an increase six months ago, and it is no excuse for delaying it now. In the interval the cost of living has gone up by at least 8 per cent. and old age pensioners are worse off than they were in the pre-war months. As far as tendencies can be relied upon, the position is bound to get worse as the war continues and the cost of living rises. I therefore support the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Leigh, that there be an immediate statement by the Government on the position.
I want to couple my plea with a final argument which is not in any sense a threat. I am in the position where my future services, at any rate while the war continues, will be not in this House but in the field, and this therefore may be the last speech I shall make in this House. They say that when men are on their deathbeds, whether it be a political deathbed or any other deathbed, they have a habit of speaking the truth, and I want the Government to realise that there is not one thing in the social field that I would rather see the Government do than raise the old age pension immediately from 10s. to 15s. a week, and I hope the Government will not delay in the matter. Obviously, an adjustment must come in certain categories, but I hope before Christmas—and that is not very long—we shall have a definite statement from the Government to the effect that the old age pension has been increased to 15s. a week, and we can adjust contributions and anomalies afterwards. I think that if the men in the field were asked what their opinion is of the proposed increase they would, almost without exception, be in favour of it, and their opinion ought not to be ignored.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I desire to associate myself wholeheartedly with the proposal that we should ask for a statement at once with regard to the Government's decision on old age pensions and that we should ask that that statement should announce an immediate increase of 5s. a week, to come into operation before Christmas. What is the history of this question of the growing agitation in regard to old age pensions? I think it is not unfair to say that this time last year the Government had no intention of dealing with the question of old age pensions in this Parliament in view of their commitments, in particular with regard to rearmament, but we all know that during the spring and summer this year an agitation grew up in all constituencies and among Members of all parties. It started on this side of the House when questions were asked and petitions were presented, but the same thing sprang up on the other side of the House, and it was very embarrassing for the Government. My particular contribution was not actually to present a petition in this House but to take it with an old age pensioner and his wife—also an old age pensioner from my constituency—and present it at No. 10, Downing Street, which is a variation of procedure. The Government realised in the month of July that something would have to be done about it, in view of the fact that a General Election was coming on, and they had the device of a Committee of Inquiry. I must say I have always thought that that was entirely unnecessary. The facts were already known to the Treasury. It was a time-saving device in order to bring out a statement at the appropriate moment.
Then the war came and the Government's interest tended to flag, but the old age pensioners' interest did not flag in the least, and there was renewed pressure from all the constituencies in favour of some action being taken. I well remember myself holding until a day or two before the war broke out a very active open-air campaign in every part of my constituency, and apart from the crisis which was in everybody's minds the question which interested every person, whether they were old age pensioners or the young people who would have to make the contributions towards the payment of old age pensions, was this ques-

tion, and one could not but be struck by the determination of everybody to have this problem dealt with. The Government again realised they would have to do something about it and a committee was appointed. Again, I think, it was an unnecessary delay. However, we have been told that there will be no report of that committee or no statement is to be made about it, I suppose until the 16th January next when the House meets. That will be the earliest date on which a statement can be made. I do not think we should be satisfied with that. We should press the Government to say, whatever the recommendations of that committee may be and however much they may go beyond 5s. a week, as I hope they will, they are prepared here and now, as a Christmas present to these old people, to make an announcement that they will have an increase from 10s. to 15s. a week.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: When this matter was first suggested I understood there were four questions to be investigated: First, should there be an increase? Second, what should the increase be? Third, what would the employers say about it, and also what would the workers say about it? I cannot understand four or five months being required to get answers to those questions. Surely the Government have made up their minds whether the old age pensioners are entitled to an increase. Do they say tonight that they think the old age pensioners should receive higher pensions? A clear and definite answer is what we want. Do they as a body think the old people should get a higher pension—yes or no? Having said that, how much should it be—2s., 5s., 7s. 6d., 10s., or what? Will the Government tell the country how much they think should be the increase on the old age pension? Having done that, they know what it will involve in cost. It would not take the Financial Secretary to the Treasury five minutes to tell us what the cost will be. If he says it will cost £40,000,000 I will accept that figure. The question then becomes, can this country find £40,000,000? The Chancellor says, "We cannot do it that way because it is a tripartite agreement; there are three bodies involved, the Government, the workers and the employers, and they have to be


considered." He says the Government will not commit themselves until they find out what the other two bodies say.
I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us to-night whether they have consulted the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries, and if so what is the reply? Will he tell us who is holding this up? I am quite sure it is not the Trades Union Congress; I am certain they are in favour of an immediate increase of at least 5s. This constant delay in this increase is not fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) mentioned the matter in this House some years ago and the Financial Secretary found some pretext for opposing it. That has been done on various occasions from time to time. We are now dealing with a body of men and women who deserve consideration. We have spent the greater part of the evening dealing with the unemployed. Their case is bad enough but it is no worse than the case of the old age pensioners.
The Government should make it quite clear whether they believe that it is possible at the moment to increase old age pensions or not. These investigations are simply a method of delaying this urgent question. I know that any hon. Member on this side who waits for the Financial Secretary to speak will have to wait for a long time, because the Financial Secretary will wait until we have all exhausted our right to speak. When he does get up I hope that he will say that the Government are prepared to make a grant of at least 5s. a week as an interim payment. You may call it a Christmas box if you like, but I regard it as a right of people who have served the country well. I am not going to argue about the cost of living. Quite apart from that, a case has been made out in this House, times out of number, for a substantial increase. I hope that the Financial Secretary to-night will not play with words, but will say quite definitely that the Government are going to agree to an immediate increase of 5s. a week.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I wish to support the plea which has been made that the Government should make a statement to-night about their intentions on this question. The constituency which I have the honour

to represent is very different in character from the constituencies of the hon. Members who have spoken from the other side, but Cheltenham is like others in that it feels very strongly about this question of old age pensions. Every day I get letters from my constituents on this matter, not only from old age pensioners but from others. I appreciate what the Chancellor has to overcome and the need for these negotiations being brought to a conclusion, but while these negotiations are protracted the old age pensioners have to live. They have an immediate daily problem which, because of the war, is becoming increasingly difficult. I am concerned particularly with those old age pensioners whose sole source of income is the old age pension—that is, the noncontributory pensioners of over 70.
In reply to a question the other day, I was told by the Chancellor that an increase to the non-contributory pensioners did not depend upon an increase to the contributory pensioners—that is to say, an increase to the non-contributory pensioners did not depend on negotiations with any other bodies, either of workers or employers, but on the willingness and the ability of the Treasury to find the money required. I ask the Financial Secretary to say to-night whether the Government accept in principle that there shall be an immediate increase in pensions for this class of old age pensioners. I would prefer that the Government should tell us, here and now, what the amount of the increase will be; but if they cannot do that, I hope they will at least give some hope to the pensioners by saying that they accept in principle that the case for an increase has been made out. I would impress upon the Financial Secretary the urgency of this matter, and I hope that before the House adjourns for the Recess some reply will be given which will give some real hope to the old age pensioners.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: There is a feeling in this country that the Government are endeavouring deliberately to fool the old age pensioners. I do not think I shall be misrepresenting the position if I say that had there been a free vote when we last debated this matter the old age pensioners would have received their increase by now, but that the Government arranged for certain people deliberately to misrepresent the feeling in the House to-


wards the old age pensioners in order that the Government might carry on, as they are now, the most dilatory methods that could be conceived. We have heard the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and there is a feeling that he is very unlike what he was in the days when he was a back-bencher; that the higher he rises in office the more cold-hearted he becomes. The methods he has adopted in treating this subject are leading the old age pensioners to believe that he has no sympathy with them at all. I hope that when he replies he will indicate that he realises the plight of the old age pensioners. Hon. Members must appreciate that if there is in this country one body which now finds it very difficult to exist that body is the old age pensioners.
I am not going to argue about the cost of living, but there are very few people in this country, particularly if they are attached to large organisations, who have not by now obtained some increase in their wages or allowances. Even Government Departments have recognised that by granting some increase in the allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Board—a matter that we have been discussing to-night. There is no other body of persons so harshly treated as the old age pensioners. They are faced with a cost of living which, up to the moment, has risen 14 points, and they have nothing with which to meet that increase. I hope the Government will realise that here is a very strong agitation going on in the country to see that justice is done. Last Saturday we held a conference in the largest hall in Cardiff, and that conference unanimously decided that something, must be done to meet the plight of the old age pensioners at once. I am certain that they will not be satisfied with anything less than an immediate grant of 5s. a week. Their demand is for an increase of 10s. a week, but they certainly would be very happy if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated to-night that he was prepared, with the consent of the Chancellor, to admit an advance of 5s. before Christmas.
I sincerely trust that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will indicate that this fooling of which the Government are now guilty towards the most honourable, industrious and loyal people in this country, will immediately cease. We are all greatly indebted to my hon.

Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for bringing this matter forward again, and for having consistently raised it on every possible occasion. I trust that the Financial Secretary will take notice of what has been said, not merely from this side of the House but by his own supporters.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I think we are all agreed that the answer given by the Chancellor to-day was a bitter disappointment. If it was a bitter disappointment inside the House, what must it have been to the old people outside? I hope that the Government spokesman will not make the same mistake as was made by the Chancellor in the last Debate, of saying that our pensions scheme is the best in the world. The Minister of Labour said to-night that the allowances given to our unemployed were the best in the world. One would have thought that the Government Departments would have some idea of what the British Dominions are doing with respect to old age pensions and allowances for the unemployed. I hope that the Government spokesman will not venture to suggest again that our social services are the best in the world. Last July an inquiry was promised. The war was made the excuse for doing nothing. There has been plenty of time since. As a previous speaker has said, was there really any need for inquiry? The facts are surely well enough known. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be necessary to consult the employers, on the one hand, and the workers' representatives on the other. That applies to the contributory scheme of pensions at 65, but surely there is no reason why the old people at 7o, who exist on State pension alone, should have to wait. Previous speakers have mentioned that the Government ought to decide to give an additional 5s. right away. I hope that the Government will do something, and it certainly would be thankfully received as a Christmas gift if the Government would do it now.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: Two years ago come January, when I was elected to this House, one of the principal planks in my platform at the by-election was the question of old age pensions. It never needed to be argued. Everybody realises that 10s. has not been sufficient even in the best of times, and that immediately


hard times come the necessity for an increase is there. I came to this House thinking that it was but a matter of weeks, or months at the most, before an increase would be granted. I had had some little experience of arguing the matter, I will not say with hard-faced employers, but with employers who certainly did not part with their money quickly, but I found, even among them, that, when an unanswerable case was made out, though they might resist it for a time, eventually they gave way and paid what they realised was a just claim. I have heard the case for old age pensions made in this House time and time again, and I have heard attempts on the part of the Minister and the Government to decry the case which has been made out, or to attempt to gloss it over and suggest that it was not nearly as bad as it was made out to be.
I received a letter from a constituent the other day that was not written in Parliamentary language. It was from a man who was drawing the old age pension, and he requested me to ask the House of Commons what they would do with 10s. He said that he paid 5s. 4d. in rent, leaving 4s. 8d. If he bought a bag of coal he had to go without something else that week. I know that the answer from the other side would be, "Let him go into the workhouse." But 6 there is a peculiarity, particularly about Lancashire people in that they have developed an independence, and the last place to which they would go would be the workhouse, however nice and comfortable some boards of guardians think it is. That man is remaining in his house, and he is starving because the Government have neglected their duty of looking after these old people. They have accepted that duty. When the Minister gets up and suggests that this cannot be done, because it is a tripartite agreement, and therefore they must see what the employers and workpeople say before they come to a decision, I would say that that agreement and that consultation which is taking place do not affect the vast majority of the people with whom we are concerned. All the old people over 70 years of age will not be affected by any payments that are made by the worker or by the employer. Their contributions must be found by the State, and they must be found now if you are

to keep faith with the people who have been promised time and time again that they would receive at least adequate sustenance.
The way in which this matter is put off reminds me of the introduction of old age pensions. I have always been amazed to hear the Minister suggest that we cannot afford it. I was a youngster when old age pensions were originally introduced. I was selling newspapers at the time, so I know something about it. I remember that it was the Liberal party who introduced them, and at that time there was a paper in Lancashire, the "Manchester Courier," which was the official organ of the Tory party. The following morning, after it had been suggested that 5s. a week should be given to the old people, the "Manchester Courier" came out with the headlines to the effect that, if the proposal for old age pensions were carried the country would be ruined. This country has always been in danger of ruin whenever the workers have needed anything. I question whether the old age pension would have been introduced at all had it not been that the fortunes of the Liberal party were at stake.
I do not know what truth there is in it, but this is the story that I heard which was responsible for its introduction originally. Mr. Asquith at that time was getting a little perturbed about what was happening in the country, so he said to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), "David, you had better think of something to dish these people." So the story goes that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went home for the week-end, played his harmonium for a little while, looked to the hills and then took out the Old Book, and as he turned over the pages of the Old Book he came across the passage:
The days of our years are threescore years and ten.
He closed the Book and hurried back to Downing street and said, "I have got it, Herbert." "What is it?" he asked, and, said the right hon. Gentleman, "We will give them a pension when they are dead." An old age pension of 5s. was given at 70, and the average age of the workers in this country at that time was 51. It was a Littlewood's chance against the worker living to draw the old age pen-


sign. So the old people got it at 70. To-day, 10s. a week is given to these old people to eke out their existence. Ministers know that it cannot be done. They have suggested that it was never intended to sufficient, and that the old people were expected to use their savings in order to eke out the 10s. and make it go a little further. I would like the Minister to come into Lancashire and talk to the cotton workers about the savings that they have after 50 years in the mills. It is not true. I used to think that the old age pension was a great thing, but I have lived to see the time when I have cursed the fact that the old age pension came into being.
What happens now at 65? A man has to face the position in which he loses his job and receives a pension of 10s. The last recollection I had, before leaving Rishton, to fight the by-election was of a man who came to my office with tears in his eyes. He said, "I shall be 65 on 15th June. I am sorry you are going away. What is going to happen to us?" I said, "You will be able to go to the public assistance committee," and he replied, "I know what will happen then. Our John and our Lil will be called upon to meet the payments made by the public assistance committee. I would rather starve than go there." That man is now drawing 10s. a week pension, and 12s. 6d. from the public assistance committee, and his son and daughter are having to pay 2s. 6d. each per week out of their miserable wages in order to do what the Government have refused to do, namely, give these people an opportunity to live.
We are always being told that this is a case for inquiry. There never has been a case for inquiry. It is a case of shuffling and of putting it off. I suggest to-night in this House that it is as essential that these old people should receive that increase as it is that munitions should be produced. It is as much a question of supply—and I am glad this is not a secret session—as arguments that will be raised to-morrow for the proper prosecution of the war. For what are you prosecuting the war? In order that you can send old folks to the lethal chamber? If that is what you want, send them now. If you want to kill them off, kill them off. Do not allow them to starve, and do it with a smirking indifference, while suggesting that 10s. will keep them out of the grave a little longer. You have

no right to keep them out of the grave if you are not going to enable them to live as decent men and women in something like comfort. I hope that we shall not only get a statement from the Minister, but that that statement will go out to the country, and if it is not satisfactory, in spite of the fact that we are fighting a war, I hope the people will let it be known that we cannot fight for freedom abroad and starve our own folks at the same time, and be looked upon as individuals worthy of our name, while we are doing it.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to add my word in support of the demand for a statement on the question of old age pensions. We have had examinations made into different questions by an association which is called the Institute of Public Opinion. If that Institute of Public Opinion made an examination in this country on this question of an increase in old age pensions, I am sure that they would get from 95 to 100 per cent. of a vote for the increase. There is no part of the country, there is no cross-section of the population which has not at one time or another registered its attitude very definitely on this question of old age pensions.
The Motion which was put down the other day by the Labour party represented the feelings of the great mass of the people in this country, but that Motion was deliberately "butchered," and it was butchered in the most callous and cold-blooded speech imaginable. Now, the Government have to face the consequences of their attitude on that occasion. They have to face up to this question before we part for Christmas. We must have a definite statement as to where we stand. If the Minister is not prepared to make a definite statement and if he is not prepared to give satisfaction to the country on this question, there will be serious repercussions so far as the Government are concerned. This campaign has been going on for nearly three years. I remember that almost three years ago John Gray and Robert Penman set out for the purpose of forming an Old Age Pensions Association. They were supported by the mother of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood). These elderly people went out night after night visiting different parts of the district in order to bring the


old folks together and to get them interested in this question, and from Fife the movement spread through Scotland and from Scotland into England and Wales.

Mr. Quibell: From Lincolnshire.

Mr. Gallacher: This campaign was organised by John Gray and Robert Penman. They built up this organisation, supported by the people of that area, and it has spread all over the country. Perhaps it might have been better if I had not introduced that particular geographical argument, but that is not important. The important thing is that in every part of the country the old folks have their organisation, the Old Age Pensioner's Association, and they are supported by the masses of the young people throughout the country. The Government, therefore, cannot treat these old people and this question in the manner they have been doing up to now.
I went with other hon. Members from this side of the House on a deputation to Downing Street at the beginning of July, with a representative body of old age pensioners from Scotland. They presented an unanswerable case to Lord Dunglass, the representative of the Prime Minister. It was obvious that the Government were in a position in which something had to be done, and Lord Dunglass asked us one question on which the Prime Minister wanted to be satisfied. That question was whether the workers would pay an increased contribution in order that the old folks should get an increased pension. Every member of the deputation answered without hesitation: "Yes. The workers will pay an increased contribution, in order that the old folks may get an increased pension." That was at the beginning of July, and here we are in December, getting ready to go on the Christmas Recess, and the Government are not yet prepared to say that they are in favour of the increase, despite the fact that the workers are prepared to pay an extra contribution. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) drew attention to the fact that in that holiday period the workers on the Clyde were not only getting their wages but a week's holiday with pay, but for the old age pensioners, nothing.
I raised this matter on the Adjournment two years ago and based my case on two

arguments that nobody on the other side would dare to dispute. The first is that on the basis of service there is no section of the community that has given such service as the old age pensioners. We give them 10s. a week, and the Government hesitate in giving them more. They say, "We cannot raise £80,000,000 to double their present pensions, although we can raise £80,000,000 for the royalty owners. I said at that time, "To the shame of those in authority the need of the old folks is as urgent as their service has been great." Nobody can dispute their need. The Minister may harden his heart and his face, but the problem is there, and the old folks are looking to us and are expecting the consideration that they deserve. Are they going to get it? I have attended many meetings of old age pensioners, and there have been representatives from every kind of organisation on the platform. I have heard stories told by Catholic priests, by Ministers of the Church of Scotland and by representatives of the Salvation Army, which would touch the heart of anyone who had ordinary human compassion. There are tragedies right in our midst.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs suggests that I tell the story told by a Catholic priest. He told us at a great meeting of his visit to the home of an old lady over 70 years of age, and I am certain that in the large gathering there was scarcely a dry eye. He told us that when she heard his voice she was sitting at the table in the room, groping for something, and he discovered that she had just received a certificate from the doctor saying that she was blind, that she would never see the faces of friends any more and never see the beauties of the world again. He told us how that poor old lady expressed a strange but sad and pathetic pleasure in receiving that certificate, and the reason was that because of that certificate she could get a few more shillings at the end of the week to ease the heavy burdens which lay upon her. Such are the stories, such are the tragedies of these aged poor. It is all very well to sit on the Front Bench and sneer at these things. I remember the hon. Member opposite—

Mr. Radford: Is the hon. Member referring to me?

Mr. Gallacher: I remember the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford)


speaking to me in a most touching manner about a Private Member's Bill which he was introducing, and asking me if I could support him. I said "Yes." He produced a number of photographs and spoke to me with the deepest feelings of sentiment about worn-out horses.

Mr. Radford: My memory may be at fault, but I never remember asking the hon. Member for any assistance on any subject whatever.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member may not remember the occasion, but I do, perfectly well. He was anxious to get the support even of the least worthy Member of the House, and he spoke to me with the deepest sentiments about old and worn-out horses. I was perfectly prepared to give, the Measure my support and said to him that now we had reached agreement "what about some better treatment for work-worn men and women?" The hon. Member said, "Yes; that is a big question," but it was obvious he had lost interest.

Mr. Radford: Will the hon. Member kindly allow me again? Whatever his views may be and however different they may be from mine, he suggested that hon. Members sitting on this side were sneering.

Mr. Gallacher: No, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that we get the most kindly sentiments expressed by hon. Members opposite on the question of worn-out horses but whenever we introduce the question of work-worn men and women they want to talk about something else. I insist on the Minister facing this question, not to satisfy the few hon. Members who are now present but to understand that throughout the country outside not only the old folks but millions of people representing the great mass of the people, men and women, young and old, are listening and waiting, and that they want to hear something definite now. Are the Government prepared to take a decision on principle; are the Government prepared to mention the amount which they consider should be granted to the old folks now? If the Minister is going to get up and reply, he had better have something to say upon that matter; if he has not he had better keep his seat and remain silent.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: Nobody will doubt that the desire for increased old age pensions is not confined to any part of the House. We all feel the same about it. Representing as I do almost entirely a working-class constituency, I yield to nobody in my enthusiasm for old age pensions being increased. It is indeed one of the greatest necessities of the time. If eloquence in this House could have brought it about it would have been done long ago. I feel that we need to do something a little better than that. Let us make a personal sacrifice. Suppose hon. Members gave it out that they were willing to travel third class instead of first, it would do very little indeed in a material way, but it would be a gesture which I am certain would be appreciated by an enormous number of people throughout the country. I have done it myself and find it very interesting to speak to recruits and to other people in the train between Wolverhampton and London. I do not for a moment say that it would solve the problem or that it would even go any appreciable way in that direction, but, nevertheless, I feel that in this time of trouble and storm and stress, nothing would be better than tangible evidence that we in Parliament feel enthusiastic about old age pensions and are prepared to make a personal sacrifice.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I would not have troubled the House at this late hour but for the fact that old age pensions and workmen's compensation are the two outstanding problems in the mind of most folks in Durham County. On one hand there is individual resentment at being forced to retain a low standard of existence and continually to visit the public assistance committee, and, on the other hand, there is the local authorities who feel that the Government's refusal to augment old age pensions and to deal adequately with workmen's compensation is thrusting upon local ratepayers burdens which ought to be borne by the central Exchequer. The House ought to recollect—perhaps it does—that it is no less than 20 years since pensions were raised to 10s. per week. During that time wage increases have been demanded, the standard of life has increased, and concessions have been made in the wage field, but not so far as pensions are concerned. Of the old age pensioners, no less than 10 per


cent. are driven to the public assistance committee for relief, costing to the ratepayers a sum of £5,700,000 per annum, and costing Durham County ratepayers a sum of 2s. 3d. in the £ on the rates per annum. If one takes into consideration the Government's notions as far as billeting is concerned, one gets a contrast between the old age pensioners and others. For billeting, board and lodging, a child receives 10s. 6d. a week, and an adult 21s. If the adult was in a casual ward, 30s. a week would be entailed, and if he was in prison, where those who refuse this concession ought to be, he would be a charge upon the community of three guineas a week.
I will not enlarge on the subject of the number of millionaires which the country still seems to be able to support, but we read, with a sense of deep gratitude, of course, that last year there were 42 more than in the previous year, and 66 as compared with the year before that. Apparently, therefore, the productive capacity of the country is still rising fairly rapidly, and we could with confidence look to this problem being remedied forthwith. Perhaps we are to receive a favourable reply from the Financial Secretary. Statisticians tell us that from 1933 to the end of last year the productive capacity of the country increased by 27 per cent. Unhappily, it has not gone into County Durham. I find that in Durham, in 1939―40, there was an increase over 1938―39 in the expenditure upon air-raid precautions of £21,000, public health £26,000, and public assistance £64,000—a total increase, after the receipts under the block grant, of no less than £91,000, public assistance involving by far the largest increase in the year's estimate.
Throughout the country 10 per cent. of the old age pensioners are driven to public assistance for relief, but in County Durham 5o per cent. have to seek such relief—12,032 out of 24,800 cases—and they received from the rates £312,000 per annum out of a total expenditure in Durham of £1,134,000. Therefore, the pensioners received in relief over a quarter of the total expenditure upon public relief in the County of Durham. Does any hon. Member seriously assert that, when there is an expenditure of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a day upon the war, the mere trickle for which we

are asking in additional relief to these unfortunate people would be noticed at all by the Imperial Exchequer? It is interesting to note that of the money that goes to the old age pensioners, no less than £1,300,000 is taken back again in the operation of the means test. In spite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement, and in other statements, when he declared that he was in favour of equality of sacrifice, he permits a state of affairs of this sort to prevail, although it could be easily remedied, so that by his actions refutes his declaration about equality of sacrifice. Probably the Financial Secretary, sharing that anxiety which we all feel that this should be as cheerful a Christmas as possible, has already made up his mind to declare on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government that this small provisional amount of 5s. as an addition to the pension will be granted forthwith and that the large amount necessary will be forthcoming when the Government's investigations have been completed.

Major Procter: Major Procter rose—

Hon. Members: The Minister.

9.36 p.m.

Major Procter: Before the Minister replies, I think I have a right to address some remarks to the House on this question, because the subject of old age pensions is not the monopoly of the Labour party. The system of old age pensions was not started by the Labour party, and whatever increase may be given will not be carried into effect by them. But I am certain that, in the spirit of fairness, which manifests itself from time to time on the other side of the House, hon. Members will agree that it is the essence of wisdom that due consideration should be given to this question. We do not, and am sure they do not wish to fix a sum which the workers of this country could not afford to pay. I refer to that part of the cost of old age pensions which is met from the contributions of the working class of this country. Furthermore, it will surely be agreed that a certain amount of time is required to ascertain what is the largest amount of pension that can be paid out of the nation's finances to these aged people in the evening of their lives.
Very often on the platform the statement is put forward that so much is paid


for battleships or in other forms of expenditure of that kind, and it is asked why should not an equivalent amount be given to our old age pensioners? What must be borne in mind is that expenditure on a battleship or in other matters of that kind, is an expenditure which is made once and for all, but whatever sum we fix for old age pensions must be continued year after year and must be added to the budgets, not only of this Government but of future governments, which may include at some distant period of time, a government composed of hon. Members opposite. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in those of us who have been pressing this matter of increased pensions — [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] I would ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that when there was a Labour Government in office nothing was done to increase old age pensions. The only people who have done anything for the old age pensioners have been those represented on this side of the House. It was only by the restoration of confidence and financial stability—the work of the National Government—that increases in our public services have been effected.
I do not wish to be led aside from my point by interruptions but I think it is rather unreasonable and is not in accordance with that spirit of fairness which as I say is exhibited from time to time by hon. Members opposite, to say to the Minister, "We want to know now what the amount is to be," before there has been time to consider the position in all its bearings. I hope, too, that when these matters are considered not only will the old age pensioners be considered, but other pensions as well, such as pensions for the widow of the uninsured worker and for the spinsters. These are worthy of attention and should be considered at the same time, and if it takes a week or two longer, provided—

Mr. George Griffiths: July, 1928.

Major Procter: The hon. Member is always interrupting, like Donald the Duck. The whole scheme of pensions should be carefully considered, so that the old age and other pensions can be as high as the finances of the country can afford. I am sure that the old people are patriotic enough not to want an amount that would cripple our effort, especially now that we are fighting for our

lives. They do need an increase. I believe the present Government will go to the highest limit that the national finances can provide, in order that our old people will be able to find it easier to live without having to go for public assistance. I hope, too, that in this inquiry some scheme may be thought out whereby a pensioner, instead of having to go to the public assistance authorities, will, if it is necessary, receive an amount equivalent to what would be paid him by the Unemployment Assistance Board as a pension, and not as public relief.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, having at one time, on a Motion, had an ample opportunity of placing the feelings of hon. Members opposite to the real test with regard to old age pensions. On this question we never object when we are faced with a typical, die-hard, honourable Conservative Member who refuses our plea in a straightforward manner. What we object to is the type of politician sitting over there who expresses his sympathy in softly spoken words, who tells the old age pensioners how he loves them for their patriotism, who discusses their conditions with a sense of dignity, knowing full well that he is merely expressing words that he does not mean—the Tammany Hall kind of politician, who comes to this House and tries to make out a case for the complete retention of a waiting period before the Government do anything at all, the kind of politician so ably represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter). We have had two good speeches, two straightforward speeches, from the Government side, appealing to the Minister to make a straightforward reply to the straightforward appeal of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) tried to draw another red herring across the trail that I thought was completely unworthy of any of his past efforts in this House.

Mr. Hannah: Why?

Mr. Davidson: To-day, when we are spending millions of pounds, when the Government in two days can pass legislation involving millions of pounds, dealing with millions of people in this country, when the Government can pass complicated legislation in one day calling up men to the Militia, dealing with necessary


services and the greatest essentials of national life, the hon. Gentleman suggests that it is necessary for hon. Members to agree to travel third class instead of first class.

Mr. Hannah: I never said it would be necessary. I suggested it might be desirable as a gesture.

Mr. Davidson: If the hon. Member makes suggestions which he does not consider necessary, we are at a loss to understand his reason for speaking. He told us how he enjoyed travelling third class. We are pleased to hear this complete example of snobocracy saying that he enjoyed talking to third-class passengers. I sweep that statement aside as one which is completely unworthy of a Member who says he represents a working-class constituency.
Let us get down to the question of the old people. Old age pensioners are poor, practically the poorest section of the community. There are 200,000 or more who, because of the meagreness of the pension, have to go to public assistance committees to have their incomes supplemented. They have to lower their pride and dignity and have to place their financial burdens on the ratepayers in order to get a few extra shillings. To-day, when the Government bring in sweeping legislation dealing with an expenditure such as we have never been committed to before, when we want contentment in the home lives of our people and desire conditions for them that will be worth fighting for, the hon. Member for Accrington thinks that the Government are doing pretty well on the question of old age pensions and that they must not be rushed.
This question was raised in the House two years ago, when a majority of only 35 was obtained by the Government. It has been raised continuously since, and the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for old age pensions is depicted by their empty benches to-night. They have had ample opportunity of acting straightforwardly on behalf of these people by voting for an increase in the pension. Words are useless to a starving old person. Sympathy is no use to these old people who have been so adequately described in the speeches to-night. The Cabinet raises its own salary and the House of Commons increases its salary,

and is now considering a pension plan for Members. There are men on both sides of the House who have never wanted for a single luxury in their lives and have never wanted for the best that life can give them, and they should be thoroughly ashamed, and should be considered a national disgrace, for maintaining by one vote a Government which refuses to increase the 10s. pension to the people who made their wealth, who built our railways, constructed our buildings, made the cushions on which Ministers are sitting and erected this building. They are the people who built trams and cars, who created our social services.
The Government is hedging on this question. I say frankly, that I do not expect a favourable reply from that Minister. The Government's method has been first to consult the electoral position in the country, to ask how this will affect them in the constituencies, and as the movement for increasing old age pensions grew, mainly by propaganda from Members on this side of the House, the support on the side opposite grew. When the Government see that this movement is a menace to their security, that the growth of it can defeat them at election time, or that a public opinion may be aroused which will be awkward for them, then they will accede to the request of the old age pensioners. They will give bit by bit, grudgingly, meanly and niggardly and a niggardly and a mean Government was never more ably represented than it will be in the reply which the Minister is going to make to our plea for the old age pensioners.

9.52 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I understood the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was going to speak. On the Adjournment the speech of the Minister usually winds up. [Interruption.] That is the normal custom, but I am perfectly prepared, as I always am, to speak in this House. The scope of the Debate has become much wider than the very narrow point on which it started. That narrow point was the complaint of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) at the reply of this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not be able to make a statement on this subject before the Christmas Recess. The Chancellor having given such a reply six


hours ago, I am certain hon. Members do not imagine that they will now hear from me that since then the position has entirely changed. They know perfectly well that I am here to say exactly the same thing as the Chancellor, and for exactly the same reasons. The hon. Member who started the Debate was quite sure that that would be so. However, his speech has led to more than an hour's debate on the general subject of old age pensions, and a repetition of the pleas—to which, needless to say, I take no exception—which were advanced several times during the last Session of Parliament. Those pleas led, first of all, to the Prime Minister's statement of 27th July and subsequently to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 1st November and to the inquiries which are now being pursued. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) said he did not know why it was necessary to have any inquiry. That may be his own opinion, but it was not the opinion of the House, which by a very large majority passed a Resolution stating:
That, whilst this House recognise the unprecedented strain placed upon our finances by the demands of the war it trusts that the Government will nevertheless pursue their investigations into the possibility of effecting improvements or adjustments in the present scheme of old age pensions as proposed by the Prime Minister on 27th July.
From that one could deduce that a large majority of the House thought this was a matter which should be investigated. The Government accepted that Motion—supporters of the Government as well as Ministers voted for it—and as a result the inquiries have been pursued. That is the position to-day.
Some hon. Members take the line in this Debate that this is one of the simplest of all matters and that you have only to have the necessary good will and just think of the right number and the whole thing can be done in the twinkling of an eye. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is by no means so. This is a very complicated and difficult problem, and those who have studied the matter know it to he such. It requires a great deal of investigation, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend pointed out on 1st November, and I will certainly not weary the House by repeating them to-day. I must say once again, as he did, that we ought not to let go out as a result of these

Debates an impression that every old age pensioner is, just because he happens to be an old age pensioner, in the direst circumstances at the present moment. One might think so from the speeches one hears. One might not recollect, as the Chancellor pointed out on that occasion, that there is a very large number of old age pensioners in work and receiving good wages. They receive their pensions, to which they are entitled by reason of the fact that they have been contributors for the requisite period.
For all I know there may be an hon. Member sitting opposite me at this moment who draws the old age pension. [Interruption.] The position would be perfectly possible. I say this to illustrate that this matter ought not to be considered in the atmosphere that every old age pensioner is inevitably in woeful distress. One must never forget that some of the things stated in this House are repeated outside, and further afield, to the detriment of this country.

Mr. Tomlinson: Mr. Speaker—

Captain Crookshank: I am not arguing the facts, which were all laid out clearly in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st November. My right hon. Friend did not give out any hope that it would be possible within five or six weeks to come to this House with any proposal. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said in his speech that everybody would be disappointed because hon. Members had told their people that something would be given to the old age pensioners before Christmas. I must point out that it is not the Chancellor's fault if they are disappointed on that score, because he did not give any such promise; what my right hon. Friend did say—

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacher rose—

Mr. Speaker: Constant interruption by hon. Members do not make it easy for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply on the Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. While the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Chancellor did not give any impression that—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Captain Crookshank: The difficulty about being interrupted is that one is interrupted in the middle of a sentence. The hon. Gentleman does not know what I was going to say. What my right hon. Friend said was that he would have the matter in front of him examined and that an inquiry would be undertaken as soon as possible. Consultation is taking place with the Trades Union Congress and with the Employers' Federation. He said that this matter was one that was bound to take time but that the inquiry would be resumed and pressed forward with every possible expedition. That is what is happening to my own knowledge, for it is a matter in which I am personally concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: Please excuse me—

Captain Crookshank: No. I really am going to finish what I want to say. The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech in which he said a lot of things with which I profoundly disagreed, as is indeed always the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that this matter was bound to take some little time. Then he went on to say in his final sentence:
I am not measuring the period by days or weeks, but my own view is that within two months, say by the end of the year, we ought to have got to that position; it may be a little more or less."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1939; col. 2064, Vol. 352.]
That position was of being able to report the result of the inquiry. That is what he said and that is nothing like the impression which the hon. Member seeks to derive from those words.

Mr. Tinker: It is the general impression that I got.

Captain Crookshank: One can only form one's impression but I think that if the hon. Member reads that speech he will find there is nothing which definitely says it will be possible to do anything by a certain date. Having said that by way of clarification, I would say that the matter has been and is being pressed on with all possible speed. As has been pointed out, there will have to be discussions with representatives of the employers and of the workpeople. Those have been going on. I am certainly not at liberty to make any statement on anything that has been said by anybody of a confidential nature; I do not intend to

say a word about it. Not only are discussions taking place, but everybody will realise that in a matter of this kind points may be raised concerning actuarial calculations, and work on those also has had to be undertaken at a time when the House will realise that the pressure on all concerned is very great.
It is not necessary to assume that the Government are the only people who are busy; other people are, too. The pressure created by the war is very great, and while neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor I wish to appear here in the role of weary Titans, the fact remains that there are many problems which have to be settled from day to day and which occupy the time particularly of Members of the Cabinet, such as my right hon. Friend, who would have been here except for that very reason, that this evening he is engaged on other matters. It has been inevitable that we should not get the matter through any quicker than we anticipated and it is to be hoped we shall be able to get the results out by the time which was anticipated, that is, by the end of the year, but I make no promise about that because we are living in days when we cannot forecast what will happen from one day to another. I should have thought the House would wish to be the first to be informed of the result of these discussions. For all I know it may have been originally intended for the House to sit later than it is going to, but at any rate I should think it is right that any statement which the Government have to make should wait until the return of Parliament. I have merely thrown that out as a suggestion.
I do not think I have any more to say except that, Recess or no, we shall of course continue working on this problem. I am afraid in these days there is not much Recess for those concerned in Government matters, any more than there is for leaders of industry, and we should all work to come to some satisfactory arrangement on these very difficult problems. On that I will leave the matter, except that in my last words I should like to say that the House has heard with pride and also regret the fact that the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) told us that this was the last speech that he is likely to make in this House for some considerable time. He is, as I understand it, once more donning uniform, and I am sure he will go from


this Debate with the good wishes from us all and with our hopes for a safe return and a speedy one at that.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Debate we have had is a very clear indication from both sides of the House that the country, and the old people in particular, have been expecting a definite pronouncement on this matter before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. The real justification for the Debate to-night—one of the many that we have had on this question—is that we are leaving on Thursday for the Christmas holidays. Most of us, particularly those of us on this side, are going back among our own folk. We shall meet with them and be asked questions, and we should be unfaithful to our responsibilities if we did not press the Government for a definite pronouncement on this question of old age pensions. So far, we have not had a definite pronouncement from the Government Front Bench that they want an increase in old age pensions. Do they or do they not agree that an increase in old age pensions is desirable, necessary, and urgent? If they would say that, it would be something. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear from that side of the House a "Hear, hear." If this question were put to a free Vote of this House there would be an overwhelming majority to ask the Government to make a definite pronouncement before the House rises on Thursday. Therefore, I press the Financial Secretary again. He has said that he cannot go further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already gone. That may be true; but there are two days more, and I would press him to consult with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to express what I think is the view of all hon. Members to-night on both sides of the House.
Is there any hon. Member on the other side who would not like to go back to his constituency with a definite promise that the Government are going to increase old age pensions? What is wrong with that? There is nothing in the fact that consultations are taking place to prevent the Government saying, "We want, and we intend to have, an increase in old age pensions." The first promise to set up an investigation was made in this House on 27th July. At that time, although we knew the international situation was

troubled and many of us had fears about it, we debated that matter more in the atmosphere of an impending General Election than of an impending war. I know, and there is not an hon. Member here who does not know, that hon. Members on the other side made private representations to the Government that they dared not fight an election unless before the election there was a definite assurance given that there would be an increase given in old age pensions. If we had been able to stave off war, we should have been during the last few months in the throes of a General Election. Two hundred Members on that side signed a round robin to the Prime Minister saying that they could not face a General Election with any prospect of success unless they could go back to their constituencies and say that there would be an increase in old age pensions. If there had been no war that inquiry would have been completed in time for a General Election; why could it not have been completed now?

Lieut.-Colonel The Marquess of Titchfield: Because of the war.

Mr. Griffiths: The Noble Lord says, "because of the war." What we doubt and suspect is that all this is merely a method used by the Government to prevent a decision. The inquiry was promised on 27th July, in September the war broke out, and on 1st November there was a Debate in this House in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) took part. We discovered that the inquiry which had begun immediately after the promise of the Prime Minister in July had been abandoned. Therefore, we are entitled to say that if we had not raised this matter on 1st November, that committee would not have been sitting. It had stopped making investigations when we raised the matter on 1st November. We are justified in raising it again on 12th December because experience has shown that the Government are prepared to take an opportunity of setting the matter aside.
There are two other aspects of this question with regard to putting it before representatives of employers and workmen to which I want to refer. There is more than one way in which you can approach the matter. The Government, for all we know, might have put the problem to representatives in such a way


as to make the obstacles and difficulties seem formidable and unanswerable. The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) made that kind of speech to-day. When we discuss old age pensions he ranges over the whole field, and says that all these things have to be considered. How did the Government put it to the employers? Did they put it before them in this way, "We as a Government are satisfied, and we are determined that there shall be an increase in old age pensions, and we ask you to investigate how best you can make your contributions towards what we decide." I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government that they should not throw this responsibility back upon any one. It is the responsibility of the Government. It is a decision which they ought to make. The Government ought to make up their minds first before consulting other people about ways and means.
The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington said that in these questions we must have regard to what the worker can pay. Is that to be the determining point? Why should the ability of the lowest-paid man to pay determine what the old age pensioner should get? A quarter of a million of them have to ask for public assistance. That means that the public assistance committee dare not give them one penny until, on investigation, they have discovered that they are destitute; in other words, before the committee can give them a supplement to their pensions, they have to be so destitute that, without that supplement, they would starve. The Government ought to say, here and now, "There are a quarter of a million old age pensioners who have had to pocket their dignity and go to the public assistance committee," and they ought to make that unnecessary. Why should working men have to pocket their dignity?
At least, leave them their dignity in their old age. They have to pocket their dignity when they go before the public assistance committee, but many of them refuse to pocket their dignity and try to eke out an existence. Is there any hon. Member opposite who would dare to say, or who would like to say that 10s. a week

is a sufficient pension? If it is not, the first thing the House ought to decide is: How much is sufficient?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot continue the Debate on those lines. It could not be done without legislation.

Mr. Griffiths: I was dealing with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington, that the amount had to be determined by what the workers can pay, and I was saying that it ought to be determined, first, by the needs of the people, and that we ought to find the money afterwards. Our experience of the last few months of war has been that we first decide what is needed, and afterwards we find the money.

Major Procter: Can the hon. Member tell me this? Seeing that the needs of the old age pensioners for many years have been exactly—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot continue the Debate on lines which I have indicated are out of order.

Mr. Griffiths: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. I was replying to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member, in which I thought he was expressing the view of the Government. What we are pressing for, what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has been pressing for, what we press for jointly on these benches, and what hon. Members on the other side have pressed for is, that before we leave this House for the Christmas Recess we expect the Government, we ask the Government, we demand of the Government, not the report of the investigation which they have not completed, but we have a right to ask them before we leave on Thursday to tell us that they as a Government are determined that these elderly people, who have given their lives to this nation, shall have an increase in their old age pension at the earliest possible moment.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.